Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 May 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 27 May 29 >

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 delete. Singularity 01:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Few Roots Replanted[edit]

A Few Roots Replanted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased album by a redlinked band. The producer and record label are also redlinks. CSD specifically prohibits speedy deletion of albums, books, etc., so here were are. Corvus cornixtalk 23:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hasn't been releasing music, and no coverage. rootology (T) 01:19, 30 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. This is a complicated and obviously controversial question. Consensus has been established several times to delete this article under variant titles, and while consensus can change, the majority of editors responding to this AfD do not seem to feel that it has, in that this specific group does not seem to have enough reliable independent sourcing to verify notability for a separate article. Many of the uncomplicated arguments here for keep (i.e. not for merge or redirect) seem either to be arguing for the existence rather than notability of the group or are not offering verifiable sourcing to establish that the group is notable. Others do not address the complicating factor that the name/term has wider usage, a complication referenced repeatedly by those responders arguing to delete and underscored by the fact that those responders arguing for merge do not concord on the appropriate destination article.

While many of the keep arguments do not address the concerns raised by those arguing for delete, there is suggestion even among several of those arguing to delete that this subject may be usefully addressed somewhere on Wikipedia or, at least, that the confusion occasioned by the term should be addressed. Rather than recreate Jews Against Zionism (disambiguation), a page itself deleted following AfD, it should be equally useful to point this title to a subsection of an existing article. Reasonable objections have been raised to the redirection of the article to Neturei Karta and Satmar (Hasidic dynasty), even though I personally find Elan26's point persuasive. Anti-Zionism, and specifically the subsection on Jewish anti-Zionism, seems to be the least controversial home suggested for this information. It seems to best accord with the consensus in this AfD that the group does not demonstrate stand-alone notability but that the group and/or term may be notable in connection to a larger topic to merge a small amount (given weight concerns) of the material into that space. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jews Against Zionism[edit]

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

Why is this group notable enough for wikipedia, if anything, they can be mentioned in the Satmar or Neturei Karta articles Avi (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to redirect See Talk:Jews Against Zionism — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment First step in dealing with this article is for it to actually say something about the group. Unlesst here's a little more specificity there's not really anything worth keeping. DGG (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with DGG, if there is nothing to say that is original or notable, there is no reason for the article other than the promotion of another fringe group. ShoesssS Talk 02:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —— Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —— Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless I am mistaken, this group was paraded around in Iran by Ahmadinejad in that Holocaust denial conference, and before that threw blood on Meir Kahane. If this is that group they have lots of Google news hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are Jews against Zionism (notice lower case against) which have done both of them but this article is about a group called "Jews Against Zionism". No one is denying the existence of Jews who are against Zionism but we do need more sources about this group to see if they are notable. gren グレン 08:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation if notable sources can be found. My searches were about the terms in general not this group. gren グレン 08:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to True Torah Jews? According this journal article, "they exemplify the complexity of the Jewish fundamentalist movement." —Preceding unsigned comment added by גרב (talk • contribs) 09:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Torah True Jews" may itself be a neologism and there is justification for redirecting it to Orthodox Judaism. Be that as it may, can you give the author and context for the fragment you posted? The article itself is not free-use. -- Avi (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Anti-Zionism. -- Nudve (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is its own group and is not the meshuges who parade with the Hitler (YM"S) of Iran. --Shuliavrumi (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis is not Neturei Karta but a separate group, founded by Satmar and endorsed by all leading Satmar rabbis. However it cannot be merged into the Satmar page since it includes many non-Satmar members. User:Nat Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natsmith (talk • contribs) 18:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I have struck my delete opinion and moved over to Keep based on research that the group is gaining notoriety and does pass my personal assessment of Notability. The articles I found that lend themselves to creditability – reliability and 3rd party sourcing are shown here, [1]. However, I should point out, that the article itself does need a rewrite that establishes and points specifically to a claim of Notability such as a statement as provided by Khaleej Times: “…most notable example is the quarrel in the United Kingdom between members of Jews against Zionism and those of Deir Yassin Remembered.” Or the article is going to end up here, again and again and again. ShoesssS Talk 20:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Keep in mind that there are at least three groups called "Jews Against Zionism". The article is about the Satmar group that maintains the website. There is another Orthodox Jewish group, the Neturei Karta, who use the name. There is also a secular group in the UK by the same name. A Google search is virtually useless in this instance. If an article mentions meeting with Palestinian leaders or Ahmadinejad, it's about Neturei Karta. If it's about something in the UK, it's about the secular group. Those probably account for 99% of the Google hits. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing proven besides having a website, fails NN. --Shuki (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (this is actually the 5th AfD for this, it has been deleted 4 times in different formats), and then I recommend recreating the Jews Against Zionism (disambiguation) page that was deleted in this AfD to clear up the continuous confusion over the three different groups Malik mentioned that get lumped under this title. The group the current article is about has no third party sources confirming it is actually associated with Satmar and the website registration does not confirm who actually runs the site and therefore fails WP:V. The more notable of the three groups labeled JAZ is the nonreligious European group. The news articles that mention Jews against Zionism are not referring to the group in this article but rather either the anti-Zionist group [Neturai Karta] (they're not called JAZ but as Jews who happen to be against Zionism they come up in "Jews against Zionism" searches) or the secular group. At least the old disambig page made clear the different groups that get associated with this name, none of which are individually notable enough for their own article. --MPerel 02:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a mess, and it is difficult to see what is the best way to proceed. It certainly shows the unwisdom of deleting the original disambiguation page. This group is probably notable enough to warrant an article, but there is a clear difficulty in distinguishing between it and Neturei Karta. But it would be better named True Torah Jews or True Torah Jews Against Zionism, as they call themselves. As MPerel and Malik Shabazz note above, many of the Google hits for "Jews Against Zionism" actually relate to the organisation of left-wing anti-Zionist Jews in Britain. I believe that this group, too, should have an article on Wikipedia. It is active and well known, and at least as notable as, for example, Brighton and Hove Palestine Solidarity Campaign or Engage. It is mentioned in other Wikipedia articles, and occasionally mistakenly linked to this article. However, as I am a leading member of that group, it would clearly be a conflict of interest for me to write such an article, or to make any more than technical or obviously factual edits to it. Additionally, such an article would inevitably attract the unwelcome attentions of the Runtshit vandal, creating more unneeded problems. At the very least, we should recreate a disambiguation page, and ensure that links refer to the correct group. RolandR (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Culturalrevival (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keap - this article evidently bothers fgor the pro zionist users that it exists we cannot let this vicios censorship rule ourt project. It is not fringe if u arnt a zionist. i am a jew and i atest that this org is main stream amongst hasidic frum religies jews thanks--YY (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The issue isn't whether the article (or the website) bothers pro-Zionist editors, it is whether the organization is notable. If you feel that it is, please provide WP:reliable sources that indicate so. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note to closing admin Please note that YY is not responding based on wikipedia policy and/or guideline, again. -- Avi (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CSD G4 -- Y not? 04:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Satmar (Hasidic dynasty) and, specifically, into the scction of that article "Satmar opposition to Zionism" Which alreadyhas a section explaining the difference between this group and Neturei Karta.Elan26 (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singularity 01:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hermes Abrasives[edit]

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

Unremarkable company. 3 manufacturing plants does not "one of the largest abrasive suppliers in the world" make. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 28 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. Consensus is that currently the subject does not meet WP:BIO to the point of warranting a separate article, as she has not yet established notability outside of the context of the show. WP:BIO1E, incorporated by reference several times, indicates that "[i]f reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." While selection in a reality show is only a distant corollary to the specific example of a governmental election, commonality is still clear enough. Being an "also ran" is not inherently notable in terms of BIO. While several of the participants in this conversation felt that the subject had gained additional notability within the parent topic of America's Next Top Model, Cycle 10, other responders did not find sourcing provided sufficient to demonstrate widespread notability. If, as some responders contend, the subject continues to work and grows more notable, there is nothing to prevent the creation of an article about her with sufficient reliable, independent sourcing to verify this. In the meantime, inclusion of this in ANTM wiki has been proposed, and seconded. If restoration of this article is necessary long enough to transwiki this, I will be happy to oblige. Please contact me at my talk page. Otherwise, another of the listed administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles may be willing to comply, although please note that for GFDL compliance details of the article's history must also be transwikiied. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claire-Aimee Unabia[edit]

Claire-Aimee Unabia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Finishing unfinished nom for User:Tastyfreeze43. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Claire was one of the most significant girls of the season with her multiple challenge wins, great pictures, interesting personality, notorious fight with Dominique, falling on the plastic sheet, drinking her own milk, being the oldest girl of the cycle, her controversial elimination, etc. etc. Also, although she has not done too much modeling yet considering that the show just ended, we will definately see more of her in the future and would need to recreate the page afterward anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.27.7 (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not wanting to bite but, did the nom give a reason? Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment same goes for me, if it just a deletion proposal for the sake of it, I guess we can keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siemgi (talk • contribs) 29 May 2008
  • Delete non-winning contestant on a basic-cable game show, come on. L0b0t (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. By the way it's not on cable. The contestant was very popular (multiple CoverGirl of the Week) and is beginning to build a career. If Fatima Siad stays so can this one and Stacy Ann Fequiere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Siemgi (talk • contribs) 29 May 2008
  • Delete. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. The problem with these various ANTM contestant pages is that outside of the winner, they aren't really notable. Claire has yet to prove herself as a model. If/when she does, then this page can be created. If not, then there's no notability established. Just being on a reality show isn't enough to establish notability. (And by the way, please sign your comments.) SKS2K6 (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There are pages for say, the Star-Trek characters, I don't know about them but I assume they are notable in their sphere, well Claire is notable in the ANTM sphere so why doesn't she deserve her page? Siemgi (talk • contribs) 18:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some non-winners and non-runners up from ANTM are notable: Elyse Sewell is one of a handful on Wikipedia. THE evil fluffyface (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There is a vast difference between fictional characters from a 40 year-old seminal franchise like Trek and a losing participant on a game show. Also other stuff exists is not a valid reason to keep something. L0b0t (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment She is not just a contestant. She is a 5-times covergirl of the Week who has won 3 challenges, appeared on the Tyra Show, walked on Runway Moms, modelled for Stork, Gkamour, Seventeen and photographer Shiloh Crawford. I wouldn't make an article on Aimee Wright or Amis Jenkis for instance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Siemgi (talk • contribs) 30 May 2008
          • Again, she is a losing contestant on a television game show with no notability apart from the show. Should we have articles on everyone that has lost on Wheel Of Fortune, Liar's Club, Password, et al? L0b0t (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • No. But my point is that her notability inside the ANTM community is enough to let her have her own article. I'm just talking about two contestants not all of them. Don't try to change the meaning of what I'm saying.Siemgi (talk • contribs) 22:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Her notability inside the ANTM community is irrelevant and non-germane to this AfD. What matters is her notability to the rest of the world, that is multiple, reliable, 3rd party sources. L0b0t (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Runway Moms is not ANTM related, nor are her shoots, nor are the articles that covered her appearance on the Tyra show. Same goes for Stacy Ann. A NSU page or a Youtube video made by a thanksful designer are kinda third party. so are their interviews with LA Times..Siemgi (talk • contribs) 11:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not convinced. All of the linked refs in the article are to blogs about ANTM or primary sources like Tyra and Ms. J.. Lets see multiple mentions of the subject of the article in a context other than ANTM, being involved in a notable event does not make her notable. L0b0t (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Here is Stork magazine http://www.storkmagazine.com/?page_id=48, Runway Moms http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g2grfUYaNM, one of the videos she directed http://fr.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=34298686 and here is one of the many articles about her tree planting with Tyra http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/magazine/01tyra-t.html?pagewanted=2 Hope that helps.Siemgi (talk • contribs) 13:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides all others in favor I believe she is notable for having two major reality show appearances, giving birth and getting married on TV. Will have a short film coming out, an article in mute magazine, and is/was? trying to start a charity green acres. She is a lasting personality as this back and forth on this page shows, unlike wheel of fortune etc. losers who are not public personalities.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.215.238 (talk • contribs) June 1 2008

  • Comment There's a wiki somewhere that is specifically for ANTM except no one knows about it. Maybe we should list the contestants' ANTM history there instead unless Wikipedia policies apply to that wiki? THE evil fluffyface (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, a dedicated ANTM wiki is the perfect place for this sort of bio page. L0b0t (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at all these links and I have to say, I'm still not buying it. Stork magazine and Runway Moms are both products of Expecting Models Inc., a modeling agency that reps pregnant models. Is that Claire's agency? Other than that, Seventeen? She's a model. She gets work modeling. Working in your chosen profession is not notable. A video on You Tube? Is it the actual video that was released for the song or has she just used the song as a soundtrack for the strip club vignette? Planting a tree with Tyra? That's just an offshoot of ANTM. There is nothing in this article that could not be condensed into a line on the ANTM page or transwikied to the dedicated ANTM wiki. L0b0t (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Doesn't pass WP:BIO, as per most non-winning contestants on such shows. Black Kite 17:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Ann Fequiere[edit]

Stacy Ann Fequiere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Finishing unfinished nom for User:Tastyfreeze43. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment not wanting to bite but, did the nom give a reason? Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment same goes for me, if it just a deletion proposal for the sake of it, I guess we can keep the article.
  • Delete Same as AfD above, non-winning contestant on a basic-cable game show, come on. L0b0t (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Elimination was controversial, several support pages on the web.
  • Delete. The problem with these various ANTM contestant pages is that outside of the winner, they aren't really notable. Stacy-Ann has yet to prove herself as a model. If/when she does, then this page can be created. If not, then there's no notability established. Just being on a reality show isn't enough to establish notability. And the controversy over her elimination wasn't really a big one, outside of the fansites. (And by the way, please sign your comments.) SKS2K6 (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There are pages for say, the Star-Trek characters, I don't know about them but I assume they are notable in their sphere, well Stacy Ann is notable in the ANTM sphere so why doesn't she deserve her page? Siemgi (talk • contribs) 18:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Star Trek characters are known outside of their fanbase. A character like Spock is a notable character on a notable show, 'cause Spock was a character who was on the show for quite a long while. Reality show contestants are there for a few episodes and are gone later. That's not notable in and of itself. Like I said, if Stacy Ann does develop a career later in life, then that's great and a Wikipedia page can be made. But if not, it violates Wikipedia policy due to her lack of notability. A few years from now, will many remember her? Probably not. That's why Star Trek characters are not comparable. Stacy Ann would be comparable to any losing contestant on any reality show. Very few of them merit their own pages, and the ones that do are because they have become bigger (for example, see Jennifer Hudson or Chris Daughtry or Elisabeth Hasselbeck). SKS2K6 (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Outside Spock? I don't think so. And Stacy Ann has modelled for Seventeen, has several support pages/videos on the web and was a controversial eliminee.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus and per withdrawn nomination (with no other delete opinions) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fearnhill School[edit]

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

Delete no claim to notabilty made in the article, which is just one sentence long Jack1956 (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TerriersFan, why not put some of the information you have into the article now. On the one hand,all secondary schools probably are notable, but if the article doesn't say anything about them, what's the point? DGG (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done; I need to get my hands on the Ofsted report (the link is broken but I have emailed the school) to extend the article but it now has the necessary sources. TerriersFan (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as for other highschool articles. This has one of the standard criteria, athletic championships. DGG (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As update, the reliable and verifiable sources establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn in view of the recent additions. Jack1956 (talk) 08:58, 29 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 (G6) by Rmhermen. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight sun by stephenie meyer[edit]

Midnight sun by stephenie meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This Article allready exists here [6] Bit Lordy (talk) 22:40, 28 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 Jesmond#Primary Schools (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Jesmond Primary School[edit]

West Jesmond Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Simple primary school article with absolutely no demonstration of notability, and (other than being a school, presumably) no assertion thereof. Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 28 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 as hoax; block contributor. DS (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Abused Sheepdog Alliance[edit]

Non-existent organization? I can find zero google hits for "National Abused Sheepdog Alliance" and also none for "National Abused Sheepdog". The only link on the page goes to the aspca's main page, and I don't find this organization on that page when I do a search for "sheepdog". Corvus cornixtalk 22:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See also this diff on the ASPCA article. Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a hoax. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Someone's idea of a joke about what NASA might also stand for. Blast this one off the face of the earth. Mandsford (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:HOAX Arsenikk (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it smelled rotten when it was added to the main ASPCA article but I was headed off line but didn't have time to deal with it at that moment. There's no way that there are no hits for a 60+ year old org in the US TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 01:30, 29 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. ~~ N (t/c) 18:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-Siberian Pipeline[edit]

Trans-Siberian Pipeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It can't be identified to which pipeline this article refers as there is no pipeline with this name. The article doesn't give information about the pipeline, but concentrates to the sabotage act by CIA - something, which is a hoax by some sources. If the article remains, et should be renamed to be in line with the main subject of this article, which is claimed sabotage act Beagel (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but rewrite primarily from major media sources. This pipeline project was a major thorn in the side of the US-Europe-USSR triangle in the early 1980s and that part of the history is well-documented and should be the topic of the article. (The media generally gave it varying names such as "the Siberian pipeline", less commonly "Trans-Siberian"; I can't find out what the USSR formally called it.) The story about the explosion and the supposed cause at the hands of the CIA is largely sourced to a single memoir and should not be given undue weight, but by itself the tale inspired much commentary. --Dhartung | Talk 23:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. To which pipeline you refer? Because the current article mixes at least two different pipelines. This USSR-Europe-USA controversy about gas export/import and construction of gas pipelines was concentrated to the Urengoy - Pomary - Uzhgorod pipeline, which was constructed in 1982. This was and still is one of the major export pipelines of Russia. In US and Western-Europe media it was called West Siberian Pipeline. At the same time, the explosion happened in 1982 at the Urengoy - Surgut - Chelyabinsk pipeline. So, it is not clear about which pipeline the story is about. Also, the article mainly is about sabotage act and not about the pipeline itself. As of controversial story about claimed sabotage act, it deserves its own article, but the name of this article should clearly state this and the text itself should make clear that although well referenced, all this story is based on a single memoir.Beagel (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs restructuring, and even renaming, none of which are justifications for deletion of a reliably sourced article. Alansohn (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It needs to be also rewritten to clearly state that all these reliable sources are secondary sources referring to the same primary source (see the comment by User:Dhartung. Beagel (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (Do I get a vote?) I added some more references. Articles shouldn't be deleted because they're badly written- badly-written articles should be improved. According to Beagel, the Russians called the pipeline the Urengoy - Surgut - Chelyabinsk pipeline, but since most Soviet pipelines weren't the subjects of United Nations debates and riffs within the NATO allies, few were widely known of, which is probably why it was referred to as simply "The Trans-Siberian Pipeline" by Reagan, Haig, CBS Evening News, and The New York Times. - Eric (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, since it's now quite clear that these are two different trans-Siberia pipelines, I've separated them. References to the contentious pipeline that the White House referred to as the "Trans-Siberian pipeline" (the Urengoy - Pomary - Uzhgorod pipeline) remain in this article, and the story about the supposed CIA operation to blow up the Urengoy - Surgut - Chelyabinsk I moved to a new article: Siberian pipeline sabotage. Sorry- I got the two different pipelines mixed up. - Eric (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I am not sure, which pipeline it is because the article mixes information about different pipelines — some information refers to the Urengoy - Surgut - Chelyabinsk pipeline and some refers to the the Urengoy - Pomary - Uzhgorod pipeline. How we can have an article about pipeline if we can't identify the object of the article. The solution could be rewriting this article and rename to reflect the subject which is a sabotage act. Beagel (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The writing isn't great but it's way beyond notable. rootology (T) 01:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn nomination: the main issues are solved now, minor issues would be addressed in the editing process. This article is split now into two separate articles.Beagel (talk) 16:18, 30 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. Singularity 01:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illogicopedia[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Notability states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." WP:WEB states "Wikipedia articles about web content should use citations from reliable sources.". The article is almost entirely cited from the website itself (a primary source).

Sources evaluation:

Sources evaluation
Just another non-notable wiki, the author of the page is an admin from the site. Notability and verfiability has clearly not been established as there is no substantial coverage so therefore fails WP:WEB easily, so delete. Otterathome (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hm, WP:COI is a concern to me. Otherwise, fails WP:WEB and WP:RS. treelo talk 23:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Illogicopedia is the product of a lot of effort to be a storehouse of intentionally crafted nonsense, and after one viewing, there's no reason to come back a second time. Maybe this is where all the deleted hoaxes go to. Mandsford (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It only gets trivial mentions in the news articles. The secondary coverage of this website seems to be little more than mentioning its name then moving on to the general concept of comedy/nonsense encyclopedias, very far from in-depth coverage.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while WP:WEB and WP:RS] may be effective reasons for deleting this, can I please note that WP:COI does not come into this for a second. I may well be an admin on the site but it doesn't mean that I don't know how Wikipedia works and know how to write and article. Hence my one other article not being deleted: I'm a fan of the musician but that didn't cloud my judgement. Much as I provided a balanced account of Illogicopedia. Fair enough, it doesn't meet notability guidlines yet. --—Mr. MetalFlower · chat · what I done did do 13:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the list of largest wikis appears flawed: look for example at the number of users vs everything else --90.198.245.77 (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Devour. Shock! Or maybe not. I'm one of the wiki's founding trio and have been keeping the Illogiblog, which has a bit of a section on Illogicopedia in pop culture (ie news reports etc.) so I would probably be in a good position to say Illogicopedia ain't nowhere near notable enough for an entry on Wikipedia. HisSpaceResearch hit the nail on the head: the articles referenced only mention the site in passing and Otterathome's sources evaluation shows that at least two refs (I think) are from the same syndicated article. Furthermore, I actually fear that it probably never will be notable enough, perpetually living in the shadow of Uncyclopedia and all. I'm trying to look for a crumb of notability (as I have been for months to try and warrant a WP article) but sadly there are none. I don't normally feel compelled to vote on AFD but I felt, well, I should stick my nose in here. Cue 'Judas' cries... -- Hindleyite (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:RS; fails WP:WEB. It doesn't have anything that qualifies as 'significant coverage from a reliable source'. Most of the sources provided are actually about Kamelopedia, a different website which itself was deleted for non-notability back in 2006. So I don't think this one has much hope of succeeding. Terraxos (talk) 00:22, 30 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. Singularity 01:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super transformation (other media)[edit]

Super transformation (other media) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article about a fictional element in a comic book fails WP:FICT and violates WP:PLOT. No amount of cleanup can fix this, in my opinion, so I nominate it for deletion here. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 21:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - This violates the wikipedia general notability guideline. The article doesn't use secondary sources to show that this topic is notable. This looks to me to be original research violating the rule against original synthesis. Just because someone noticed a pattern between a few kinds of media, it doesn't mean it's a notable, verifiable, non-neutral topic. Randomran (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Seem to be having a spate of Sonic related AfDs recently. Mostly WP:OR isn't it? It failing WP:FICT or WP:PLOT are just cursory. treelo talk 23:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also WP:N. In my opinion, WP:RS and WP:V too, not just for the "fancruft", but also for the video games too. --tgheretford (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and transwiki As others mentioned, it fails to meet WP:FICT, plus it's filled with fancruft that belongs to a Sonic-related Wiki. Magiciandude (talk) 03:15, 29 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/redirect as requested by nominator. TerriersFan (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hillhead Primary[edit]

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

Appears to be nonnotable. I know that it has this First Green Flag, but this article states that over 1,300 schools have it in Ireland alone, so I'd guess it's not an impressive award. Otherwise, no assertion of notability at all, other than being a school. If this were a US school, I'd propose merging to a school district, but as it's in Scotland, I bring it here. Nyttend (talk) 21:07, 28 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 close, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultima Online shard emulation[edit]

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

Failure to meet the general notability guideline of independent coverage in reliable sources. Thus fails WP:N, as this is not notable by wikipedia standards. Randomran (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hm, looks like a significant factor in the history of the seminal MMORPG. The Escapist has significant amounts of stuff about this - does it have editorial oversight? --Kizor 21:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took a look at the site and I think it might. I haven't seen them talk about shard emulation though. If you can find some reliable references on this emulation, then I'll gladly withdraw this AFD. Randomran (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's an article from the site in the reference section of this article. --Kizor 22:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Holy crap, I don't know how I missed that. I formally withdraw the AFD. Thanks for pointing this out. If an admin could close this, I would greatly appreciate it. Randomran (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 28 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 keep, nomination withdrawn. --Kizor 20:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exult[edit]

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

Failure to meet the general notability guideline of independent coverage in reliable sources. Thus fails WP:N, as this is not notable by wikipedia standards. Randomran (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator: Article creator found a second reference, and as the nominator I admit that I didn't see the first reference. If it wasn't already notable before, it's definitely notable now. Randomran (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (disclaimer: I'm the article creator). Exult has had non-trivial coverage in press; regrettably, not very much mentioned in the article itself, and even more regrettably, I can't find the exact reference to the Real Game Magazine Article right now. I'm thinking of Pelit. However, there are a few articles in the Web, one of which is even listed in the article: O'Reilly LinuxDevCenter article, and there was also a GameSpy developer interview. Sorry, I can't find a giant massive amount of articles on such a short notice and with beginnings of a headache, but I hope those are enough to satisfy even bare minimums =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad. Thanks for being so understanding. I added the gamespy reference, so now you have the two references minimum. But even with one reference, this shouldn't have been nominated. I'd actually flagged a few Ultima articles as potential trouble, and when I came back to them I nominated them for deletion. Turns out they had the references, but just in an older format that I wasn't used to. I made the same mistake twice, seeing as I nominated them both back to back. Thanks for digging up the gamespy reference, as the article definitely passes the notability requirement now. Good luck and good editing. Randomran (talk) 18:52, 29 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 Occupancy grid. All info appears to have been merged already. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Occupancy Grid Mapping[edit]

Occupancy Grid Mapping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reason j.t. (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this article's contents should be in occupancy grid.

  • Redirect I've re-established the content you removed for the redirect per AfD guidelines. Redirect to Occupancy grid as it covers the same priniciples. treelo talk 00:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - aside from the duplicate content issue, there's also the capitalization error. Should we rename, then redirect? It doesn't make sense. In any case, I think this is a author-requested deletion, and should fall into the "speedy" category. Jing - would you like a redirect or a deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiuguang Wang (talk • contribs) 29 May 2008
  • Delete as redundant to Occupancy grid - I am surprised that the page is still here since this was an effective G7. Smile a While (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into occupancy grid. Occupancy Grid Mapping, as written, lacks sufficient context to be in a general encyclopædia; occupancy grid is too technical. And you fix articles that are too technical by adding, not subtracting content. So add the content from Occupancy Grid Mapping into occupancy grid, and merge the histories. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What content? The article has three sentences. And occupancy grid isn't too technical - it explains the purpose and the general algorithm very well. It already contains everything in Occupancy Grid Mapping. --Jiuguang Wang (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This is a tough one. It would probably have been speedily deleted as a G7 if its creator had tagged it accordingly, but even though the creator remains the only substantial contributor, another editor has objected to its deletion for what seem to me good reason. I agree with 69.140.152.55 that it provides a more easily comprehended introduction to the subject than that contained in the current article. I also note that the nominator himself does not say he wants the material gone, just relocated, which is effectively indicating a desire for a merge. The deletion rationale, coupled with the use of AfD instead of CSD, suggests simply a lack of sufficient experience to know how to handle this situation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into the present stubby o.g. article. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with no prejudice against renomination if the article does not improve substantially in the next few months. Nandesuka (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American patriotic music[edit]

American patriotic music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of patriotic songs , all the issues their apply here.Fails WP:OR, WP:NPOV,WP:Cite and WP:V Gnevin (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – I do believe the page should be changed from “Music” to “Marches”. With that said, there is enough Scholarly work out there, as shown here, [8], to substantiate a piece here on Wikipedia. I’ll work on it, as this Afd winds its way through the process. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 20:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment All I see in that search result is the term being used. Where's the scholarly work that treats the subject of patriotic song or patriotic march in detail? --Bardin (talk) 04:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Define Patriotic? In the current guise Born in the USA could be included. Is their a definition of Marches ? Gnevin (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gnevin, thank god I do not have to do that :-). That is why I went to Google Scholar, as noted above. I let bigger brains than mine get involved with the meaning of things. I just copy over what I read. Without plagiarizing, of course :-). ShoesssS Talk 21:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All-American Original Research!!! Not ready to say delete, because it would be so easy to source this and make it a little bit more intelligent of an article. Mandsford (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's different from the list page because it's not clear that the list could ever be improved. American patriotic music is a well-studied and widely-documented subject, so this article can be much improved. The fact that it has not yet been so improved is not a valid reason for deletion. Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is much more easily sourced as a topic than the favecruft that was the list. There is no particular reason to limit it to marches, either, as many key American patriotic songs (the National Anthem, for starters) are not remotely marches. So it needs sources. So does half this encyclopedia. --Dhartung | Talk 03:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Please note that there is also a corresponding category and template related to this article. I feel that this is blatantly original research without any verifiability to support the contention that any of the songs mentioned are patriotic. It seems to me that editors are just adding songs that they personally feel are patriotic to the article, category or template. We have the controversial Courtesy of the Red, White, & Blue (The Angry American) listed in the category. We have a civil rights protest song We Shall Overcome in the template. We have the war song The British Grenadiers in the article. What about songs like PT-109 or Lift Every Voice and Sing? What exactly does all these songs have in common that makes them patriotic? Whose patriotism is this? The conservatives? The liberals? The African-Americans? The KKK? The God fearing believer? The atheist? The military? The anti-war protestors? A patriotic song to one is a rebel song to another. There is no clear inclusion criteria to the article, category or template. We have folk songs, gospel songs, war songs, protest songs, even modern pop songs all arbitrarily included as patriotic songs with no consideration to context or subjectivity. This article should simply be deleted per WP:OR. --Bardin (talk) 04:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that the article begs for sources, but the mere names John Phillip Sousa and George M. Cohan establish the legitimacy of the subject. Should not be renamed. WillOakland (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment FYI, neither the article page for Sousa nor the article page for Cohan used the word patriotic anywhere. That people perceive some songs as patriotic is obvious enough but where are the reliable sources that voters keep asserting can be cited? --Bardin (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a core little bit of American history. Shouldn't it be something like Patriotic music of the United States? rootology (T) 01:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep For an article that's been around as long as this one, the lack of citations is troubling, as the subject certainly is part of musicology. There are reliable sources which can and should be cited in this article. We already have a Patriotism article, with "Patriotic song" as a redirect to it. A "Patriotic song" such as America the Beautiful should ideally link to this article once it's improved and properly sourced. JGHowes talk - 04:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a said before, this is a standard part of musicology taught at the elementary school level, where students learn about different styles of music which define time periods and respective cultures. See the Fayette County School teachers' syllabus here: you'll note that "Patriotic songs" is explicitly stated to be a required part of the core content of the curriculum, along with folk songs, marches, spirituals, blues, etc. Here's an article and knowledge quiz on American patriotic songs from the Sacramento Bee: [9]. Wikipedia, as an online encyclopedia, should keep this article so people can find the answers. And here's what the U.S. NIEHS website has about American patriotic songs: [10]. This is just scratching the surface to show that the subject meets WP:N and the article's title is fine as-is. JGHowes talk - 02:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Nobody is questioning the fact that people use the term patriotic to describe some songs. It would be easy to find sources that use such adjectives as patriotic, good, bad, dumb, stupid or even racist to describe songs. That does not mean we should create articles on American good music or American racist music because neither subject could possibly exist on wikipedia as anything other than original research dictated by the whims and fancies of subjective perceptions. Likewise with this American patriotic music article. None of those sites you provided would be of any help in improving this article to be something more than just original research. Would you all be voting keep if this article was on anti-American songs instead? --Bardin (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As a matter of fact there are a couple of articles here about American racist music, "Minstrel show," and "Coon song", both of which are quite significant in American musical heritage. WillOakland (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on probation This article needs sources, and it needs 'em bad. In particular, the definition of whether a song is "patriotic" needs to be made by a reliable source, and not by WP. The topic is notable and valuable, and I would like to see a good article here. But many of the concerns detailed by the "delete" votes are valid, and if they are not addressed then I would vote "delete" in the future. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - A7. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Everything[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Page has nothing to show notability. Only external link is band's MySpace site. Hellno2 (talk) 19:47, 28 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, copyvio as TPH indicated TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 20:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corkscrew (band)[edit]

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

This article, which is about a band, has no references. The only external link is to the band's own site. See WP:MUSIC for more info on guidelines. Hellno2 (talk) 19:29, 28 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. Mangojuicetalk 19:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homer E. Woodling[edit]

Homer E. Woodling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOTE; #1 search result is the Wikipedia page. GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep This athletic director is notable. He was also a coach at Cleveand State and that is notable. There are MANY other coaches on wikipedia of the same notability --SportsMaster (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Mr. Woodling has established Notability as shown here [11] and here [12]. Is he a Bobby Knight no! However, has gained enough notoriety to have earned a place here at Wikipedia. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 20:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comentario - I guess you could make a case for anyone mentioned in a newspaper article then. I don't think Cleveland (State) AD comments on something makes him notable. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment – Mentioned just once, no. Mentioned as many times as Mr. Woodling, Yes :-). ShoesssS Talk 02:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just because there is an on-campus building named after him that does not make him notable. Many campuses have buildings named after figures who have been important ON CAMPUS but have no notability outside of that. -UWMSports (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Mr. Woodling may be recognized on campus (or perhaps not), but I see no support in the article for his notability in the wider world. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sentence pertaining to athletic program wouldn't exist without Woodling needs to be removed right away. Rather than get into an edit war with SportsMaster, can a third party tell him that statement is outlandish. I realize he contributed to the sports at Cleveland State, but you're telling me without him they wouldn't have started a sports program in the 50 years since he's been gone. That sentence is ridiculous!!! --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is not rediculous. With Fenn College being a small private school at the time, originally a part of the local YMCA, it is obvious that he was the driving force and the reason for athletics at a collegiate level and taking them from intermurals. Read A History of Fenn College by G. Brooks Earnest. It is all in there. --SportsMaster (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not disputing his meaning to the college, but its ridiculous to say they wouldn't have sports at their school to this day without Woodling. Not one program? You believe that no one else would have instituted a sports program in the years after he left? Seems a little far fetched. It's like saying if Columbus didn't discover the Western Hemisphere no one else would have found it. Does that make sense? --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I changed the wording, you are correct, there would be at Cleveland State, but there would not have been at Fenn College, that much is for certain, since he was the only force driving through difficult times of the depression, WWII, and the problem of co-op eduation and the work schedule they had interfering with the athletic schedules other non co-op colleges faced. Also keep in mind this is a privately funded college, with no public money to help.--SportsMaster (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because page also fails WP:NOTE, original author of both articles created pages. Athletic Directors are not notable:

  • Keep and expand- Woodling, having served as head basketball coach for over 10 seasons and as athletic director for over 30, is clearly notable to the culture and character of Cleveland State University (as evidenced by his induction into that schools hall of fame and the naming of a building for him which was not due to any monetary donations). Most likely, Woodling was therefore notable to the city of Cleveland as a whole. There is no requirement for national notability. See WP:LOCALFAME states that "because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable." Local notability is still nonetheless notability. It would be preferable if this article was expanded to include additional statistics of his coaching records and further citations. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on my original comment. My enthusiasm for keeping Woodling's article has been somewhat diminished upon investigation of the status of Fenn College (the predecessor of Cleveland State University). Fenn College does not seem to have been very notable in the world of college athletics prior to being absorbed by Cleveland state in 1965. In fact Robert Busbey (the swimmer in the afd article below which I maintain an opinion of strong keep) seems to be one of its few high points. Woodling's tenure as AD and coach were apparently over by the time CSU absorbed Fenn, although all of Fenn's sports records were officially absorbed into CSU. In fact, CSU wasn't even Division I until 1972. Certainly, Woodling is an important figure in the history of Fenn College, and by its absorption, Cleveland State, but perhaps his most notable achievement was being elected into Cleveland State's Hall of Fame. Because of WP:LOCALFAME and notability guidelines for the College Football wikipedia project (see comment below), and for the sake of completeness, I have maintained my original Keep vote but my enthusiasm has somewhat weakened because of my investigation of the school's status during his tenure which seems to indicate Fenn would not have been though of as having major college (today's D1) sports status. Perhaps that can be cleared up for me if I am incorrect. Certainly, the article on Fenn needs to be clarified in order to avoid confusion of his tenure during Fenn College/CSU years and expanded. There is no CSU basketball media guide available on line to investigate his coaching records, and the information listed for basketball records on wikipedia's Cleveland State Vikings article is incomplete. This needs to be updated.CrazyPaco (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woodling served as Cleveland State's AD for one year in 1965-1966 school year. They were not division one, it did not exist back then. It used to be University division and College division, and almost as a rule if your schools name ended in College you were in the College Division (todays equivilant to Division II) and if it had University in it, you were in the University Division, with the obvious exceptions being Boston College and similar examples. Another sidenote, the coaching records on the CSU Vikings article is complete for mens basketball. --SportsMaster (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected about the wikipedia entry. I was looking at baseball. However, the naming convention for University and College relied a lot less on the schools names than you suggested as there were a ton of exceptions. Membership pretty much followed the lines it does today, although quite a few current mid- or low-major schools, like CSU, have moved up into D1 since. Perusing the NCAA hoops record book, Fenner/CSU didn't even seem to be a prominent DII school. What it does speak to is the level of competition Fenner was playing when Woodling compiled his record (which did not include any winning seasons) which speaks to his notability within the world of college basketball. However, I still think the Woodling article should stay due to the local fame argument, and certainly for thoroughness of articles about prominent CSU athletic figures and coaches.CrazyPaco (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC) I have also added additional comments below regarding the notability guidelines for other college sports wikiprojects which, by extension, would suggest the Woodling is of sufficiently notability.CrazyPaco (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe in local fame, but I'd like to know how many people on Cleveland State's campus even know who Woodling or Busbey were? Oh the gym guy or something along those lines is what they'd say. The buildings at my alma mater are named after people too, but those people weren't necessarily notable. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that someone conduct poll on CSU's campus to ask them who Woodling was to verify his notability? By your criteria, because 99% of University of Pennsylvania undergrads don't know who Louis Kahn was that makes him non-notable? If current students don't know someone that died before they were born, that doesn't mean they are non-notable, otherwise almost any deceased individual once affiliated with a university would fail to qualify under that criteria.CrazyPaco (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would be surprised with the students at Cleveland State then. In my opinion. This is also totally conjecture here. --SportsMaster (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — Former head men's basketball coach at a current NCAA Division I university. I don't know what division Cleveland State was in the 1930s and 1950s, but as a current Division I university, all former head coaches are notable. — X96lee15 (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, hasty, quick delete - Oswego's gym is called the Max Ziel Gymnasim. Does anyone care? NO... A old fogie from 1937 doesn't have any notability. Specially an athletic director. Just because they make good coin doesn't make them notable. Hell, my accountant makes 115K a year, but he sure aint notable! ----FancyMustard (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Keep - he's a NCAA Division I men's basketball coach. ALL members of this group are notable. Without question. Older coaches don't always have good Google results, but that's not a notability criteria. matt91486 (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck through the hyperbolic part of my comment as I'm now marginally confused as to CSU's status at the time, but I'm still going with keep. matt91486 (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fenn College was in the College Division when Woodling was a coach. It is todays equivilant to NCAA Division II. It must also be remembered that it was the highest level of intercollegiate athletics in Cleveland at the time.--SportsMaster (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
D-II? Woodling's notability may be nice at CSU/Fenn College, but I'm sure he was barely known in the sports universe back in the 30s, 40s, 50s. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mangojuicetalk 19:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert F. Busbey[edit]

Robert F. Busbey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Strong Keep This athletic director is notable. He was also a coach at Cleveand State and that is notable. There are MANY other coaches on wikipedia of the same notability. --SportsMaster (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And your point is what? In that you are not in Wikipedia no one should be? I’m sorry if I am coming off as confrontational please excuse me. However, after supplying 3rd part – verifiable – creditable – reliable references and someone give's the reasoning to delete that you just gave. Give me a break. ShoesssS Talk 23:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My point is just because the man was in the article doesn't make him notable. The sources you provide are just quotes taken from Woodling or Busbey about different events on campus. There's a big difference between an article about a person or just quotes taken from someone. If a reporter covers a car accident lets say they'll get quotes from people who witnessed the event. Those are the types of articles you've provided. --UWMSports (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See UWMSports Talk Page for respnce. 00:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think its fairly obvious that the athletic director of a program this size would be notable. DGG (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Sufficient notability has been established. Rosiestep (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ask all of you to name the athletic director of your alma mater without looking it up. -UWMSports (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious they are notable see List of Division I Athletic Directors--SportsMaster (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then there needs to be a major expansion on most of these AD articles. Most are one paragraph. If every AD is notable, then every college president/dean should have his/her own article too. Where does the line go to? --UWMSports (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think a much stronger case could be made for the notability of most college presidents than for that of ADs, coaches, etc., who are non-entities outside the sports fan realm. (This may seem odd to some; but then, I couldn't name a single coach or the AD for UWM, and I'm on campus almost every day.) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC) (yeah, that Orange Mike; say "Hi!" sometime)[reply]
Thank You Orange! Being an AD is a great job, but it is not a position notable of being included in an encyclopedia. Even most college sports fans can't name their AD. It is a behind the scenes job! --UWMSports (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. I would wager that if you go to any sports message board (Scout.com or Rivals.com) of a major university (BCS conference schools), 95% of the posters on those boards would absolutely know who the athletic director at their favorite school is. Myself, I can name most of the athletic directors in the Big East Conference off the top of my head along with most of the athletic directors at my alma mater over the last 50 years (that's right, well before I was born). Are all ADs notable? No, I don't think so. However, today's ADs at major schools are akin to CEOs of multimillion dollar cooperations and the position is a highly sought after and visible academic and athletic administrative position, especially at major schools. ADs are very familiar to schools athletic fan bases. When they have a substantial impact at a university, yes, I do think they are notable. I do think due to the tenure and impact Woodling and Busbey had at CSU, they are notable athletic administrators within the world of college athletics, and especially locally.CrazyPaco (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Busbey is, if anything, less notable than Woodling. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Busbey was notable enough for Dennis Kucinich to honor him in congress. I think that should be good enough for everyone. --SportsMaster (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what? My best friend was roommates with Steve Levy in college. Does that my my friend notable? NO --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing at all to do with him being honored IN CONGRESS.--SportsMaster (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, it isn't. One of the things congresscritters do (left, right, or centrist) is to pad the Congressional Record with tributes to constituents, often taken from the constituents' own PR flack; it's cheap and builds goodwill. I was reading the CR when I was a teenager, and the dreary procession of these things, killing trees nationwide to flatter somebody and their fans, always did depress me. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you voting for deletion then, Orangemike? --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm color-blind in that range; most jocks, coaches, etc. are non-notables in my mind, along with most serial killers, Pokemon, "reality" show hosts (much less contestants), porn stars, etc. So I'm simply commenting, not "voting"! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1999

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Robert F. Busbey and in recognition of Cleveland State University naming their natatorium the Robert F. Busbey Natatorium on October 2, 1999. I am honored to have been invited to this dedication ceremony.

Beginning with his enrollment in 1946 to Fenn College, later Cleveland State University, Robert F. ``Bob Busbey has contributed more to the history of Cleveland State athletics than any other single individual. As a four-sport athlete (swimming, baseball, track, and fencing), he was Fenn College's first All-American and achieved this honor in both 1948 and 1949.

After graduation, Mr. Busbey served as the head swimming coach at Cleveland State for 30 years. During his coaching tenure, Mr. Busbey was named the assistant swimming coach for the 1964 U.S. Olympic Team, served as chairman of the NCAA Swimming Committee, served as Cleveland State's athletics director, and was responsible for bringing five NCAA swimming championships to the Cleveland State natatorium.

Robert Busbey's accomplishments led to his receiving the 1982 National Collegiate and Scholastic Swimming Trophy, one of the sport's highest awards. Mr. Busbey served as the athletic director until 1990, developing a program of 18 intercollegiate sports and was a prime force in the planning and building of CSU's Physical Education Building, housing the world class natatorium. After serving as Cleveland State's Director of Athletics, Mr. Busbey served as the associate vice president for athletic affairs until his retirement in 1994. In recognition of his outstanding athletic legacy and generous support, Cleveland State University is honoring him by naming the natatorium the Robert F. Busbey Natatorium.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Mr. Busbey on his many accomplishments and commemorate him for his continuous support of Cleveland State University. "

I would say he is notable after the words "has contributed more to the history of Cleveland State athletics than any other single individual." --SportsMaster (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. That's not from a reliable source; it's from a puff piece inserted into the Congressional Record, probably at the request of the CSU Athletic Department flacks. (See my remarks above.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is the congressional record of the United States of America. I would have to disagree that it is not a reliable source. I do understand your point from a public relations standpoint though. --SportsMaster (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and expand- Busbey is clearly notable because of his athletic achievements and contributions to the sport of swimming. Besides being able to use the same argument above; that is WP:LOCALFAME "because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable." Clearly Busbey is notable within Cleveland due to his contributions to the school and without due to his overall contributions to the sport of swimming. Busbey was an All-American swimmer, chair of the NCAA Swimming Committee, and U.S. Olympic assistant swimming coach, and NCSW Trophy winner and 30 year head coach of Cleveland State's swimming team who guided them to several NCAA championships. This is in itself is highly notable in the world of athletics. As above, this article needs to be expanded to include additional statistics of his coaching records and many accomplishments.CrazyPaco (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - See: SportsMaster's Contributions; Scroll to the bottom where the run of contribs to other userpage's begin. Not sure if this is legal or not by Wikipedia standards, but he is clearly trying to manipulate the vote. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This speaks to Wikipedia:Canvassing. There is nothing wrong with notifying others that may have interest in the topic that an article is up for deletion. SportsMaster clearly maintained neutrality, which is clearly the message I received. That doesn't impact the central question of whether these articles are notable. AFD is not a vote. To be clear on this, I have no interest in Cleveland State or previous interaction with SportsMaster (at least that I am aware of), not that it is a pertinent issue. In this case, Busbey is clearly notable in the world of college swimming (having received several of its highest honors) and his article should be included in wikipedia based on that fact alone. His contributions to CSU make him notable locally.CrazyPaco (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you brought this up because it is totally legal, and I am in no way swaying the vote. Have a nice day Huskies. --SportsMaster (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fishy, because I've noticed you've reported other users who you think try to get their friends to vote as well. Just trying to be fair here. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The key here is that I do not know these people, nor are they sharing the same IP address as me as was the case before in the case of the user who I reported, legitimatly mind you.--SportsMaster (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? It is still trying to rig a vote. I'm just interested to hear what a third party thinks about this. If its kosher by them, then alright. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to rig the vote at all. If you would read what I left them on their talk pages you would see I didn't sway one way or the other. --SportsMaster (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe I can say that I am an independent third party both to this Afd, in that I know nothing about either individual nominated at this particular Afd and have had no interaction with regards to SportsMaster before this Afd. To put it as simply as possible, what SportsMaster did is very acceptable here at Wikipedia. In fact I would go so far as to say, it is encouraged in situations like this and along with the waySportsMaster phrased his request. I reviewed the messages SportsMaster left on the other editors talk page and what he said verbatim is: “…The following articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homer E. Woodling were nominated for deletion. You are welcome to share your opinion on if they should be deleted or not. Thank you for your time.” He did not express his own opinion nor did he try to influence a particular opinion from these editors. Honestly, I have done the same thing a few times where I wanted other editors I respected and trusted to voice their honest opinions, just to make sure I was on the right logic track. Where Canvassing is frowned upon, here at Wikipedia is when you are looking for specific responses or trying to influence an editors response. However, in situations where you are only asking for an unbiased opinion on your thought process is perfectly acceptable. The other thing to remember, here at Wikipedia, is that the Afd is just a process to gather consensus, not a vote. The closing administrator of this Afd is not going OK we have 15 Keep votes and 14 Delete votes, therefore it is a Keep or vise versa. Rather the administrator looks to the reasons why an editor expressed a keep or delete opinion and weights the validity of that opinion. In fact, I have seen Afd’s on both sides of the fence be closed for the minority opinion, rather than the majority. So always remember, when involved in these types of situations, give a reasoning why you expressed a Keep or Delete – Support or Oppose. It goes a lot further than the individual who responds with “…per nominator”. One final though! Always assume Good Faith. In other circumstances or another time, you would have received a warning from me for even broaching the subject in this setting. Fair enough. ShoesssS Talk 01:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Orangemike it is a no-no; Scroll down to bottom. Shoes, I assume good faith where ever possible, but Master reported another user for getting someone to vote in an AfD. So if he wants a fair playing field and not having a user try and influence a vote, then he shouldn't do it either. I'm not going to report SM, but I'm just trying to be fair on all sides. I will definitely recognize the admin's final decision here, but lets let people decide for themselves. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shoessssssss has a point here; the language quoted is not out of line. As I have mentioned, this subject matter is an area of massive indifference to me. The out-of-line part was the impression I was given, that he was messaging people with an interest in CSU (thus possibly lacking an NPOV), rather those with expertise in sports. If that is not the case, then we should indeed AGF. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is amazing how you left out the part that the person who I reported HAD THE SAME ISP as the other user. Thank you once again for your concern. --SportsMaster (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What he did was wrong, but if you're reporting anyone for any kind of vote manipulation its pretty low that you would be doing it too. Can we agree to let the vote be done in a fair manner? --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool it, guys! --Orange Mike | Talk 03:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the guidelines. I did nothing wrong. Wikipedia:Canvassing. You are right, it should and IS being done in a fair manner and I am not doing any kind of voting manipulation. I find your attempt to find fault in my actions (deleting comments from MY OWN talk page and the afore mention non problem) petty and totally uncalled for. You should also stand by your own word "So what? It is still trying to rig a vote. I'm just interested to hear what a third party thinks about this. If its kosher by them, then alright." A third party did give their input, and you still can't accept it.--SportsMaster (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and Orangemike told me it was a no-no, I went to someone you didn't leave a message with. I'm willing to let it go if you don't do it again. Can we move on? --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did NOTHING wrong, and I will do it again because I have done nothing wrong. I also didn't ever write on Shoessss talk page. Once again I find your excuses petty, annoying and a complete waste of everyones time. --SportsMaster (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just shady you would do that after complaining about someone else doing it. I'm sorry, I was just concerned. You may or may not have done something wrong, but you should understand why it would bug me when you report people for every little thing that doesn't go your way. That's all I'm saying. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong in what Master did. Your concerns are appreciated GoHuskies, but you can let this go. --UWMSports (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UWM, Huskies has a great point though. If Josh is going to report anyone who disagrees he should be called out when he does something less than honorable. Heck, Master better be a saint if he reports anyone under the sun. He is a loser!!! --FancyMustard (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Being the coach for 5 NCAA swimming championships makes Busbey notable. I still think there would be athletics at CSU if Buseby was never there though. — X96lee15 (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-upon further review of the NCAA record books, CSU never won any championships. Busbey was responsible for CSU hosting 4 NCAA D1 Swimming and Diving championships and 1 DII championships. The wording of the congressional record is confusing.CrazyPaco (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, hasty, quick delete - Oswego's gym is called the Max Ziel Gymnasim. Does anyone care? NO... A old fogie from 1937 doesn't have any notability. Specially an athletic director. Just because they make good coin doesn't make them notable. Hell, my accountant makes 115K a year, but he sure aint notable! ----FancyMustard (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- first off, what is Oswego? It certainly isn't a NCAA Division 1 university. Being an "old fogie" does not disqualify Jim Thorpe or Babe Ruth from notability. Why again is an athletic director not notable? Because your accountant makes six figures? ADs notability has nothing to do with their salary, which is not as extravagant as you think. Besides, Busbey is more notable for his contributions to the sport of swimming than anything else.CrazyPaco (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Mustard chose a poor choice of words there, but Paco, neither of these men are Babe Ruth or Jim Thorpe. Any Tom, Dick or Harry knows who Babe Ruth was, and any sports fan knows who Jim Thorpe was. I guarentee about one and twenty million sports fans knew who Busbey or Woodling were. Athletic directors simply aren't notable unless its a Craig Littlepage or someone who has taken a step out of the office. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Woodling and Busbey should not be discussed together. These articles each have merits that should be discussed separately. Secondly, when did I ever compare Busbey to Jim Thorpe and Babe Ruth? I was showing how poor Mustard's line or reasoning was regarding diminished notability due to age. There is no basis to suggest that because someone left their mark prior to 2003 (in this case late 40s though 80s) that it somehow reduces their notability. There are 10,000s of "old fogies" in wikipedia. And finally, I just completely disagree with you. ADs at BCS schools can absolutely be notable and are often highly visible. I don't know how closely you follow college athletics, but AD often are quite visible in the media. That said, I've never contributed to an AD article before, I don't have any vested interest in CSU. Does Busbey deserve and article because of his AD status, that's a valid debate, because CSU is not one of the top echelon universities, however because of the length of his tenure, his role in moving CSU to Division 1, and his role in the 1980s basketball scandal makes for the possibility of an interesting article. However, in my opinion, due to his contributions to the world of swimming, there is no doubt that he passes any test of notability.CrazyPaco (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Comparing Robert Busbey to George Herman "Babe" Ruth? Seriously? And I agree with UConn guy, ADs sit in offices and make schedules and such. They aren't the ones in the PUBLIC EYE like the players and coaches. ADs are relatively unknown. Even the Littlepage page Huskies provided is in bad shape. And Oswego has provided more to the sports universe than Cleveland State. CSU may be D-I, but anyone with a brain knows there is huge gap between the top D-I schools and the bottom of the barrel D-I schools. --FancyMustard (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is also laughable is Comparing Division III Oswego's Ziel gym to the Div 1 Busbey Natatorium that has hosted 4 Div 1 Men's NCAA National Championships (that alone makes Busbey natatorium notable on its own). CSU is a Div 1 school that has had All-American's, sent players to the NBA, has one of the all-time NCAA steals leaders, has placed its sports in various D1 championships, and is one of the top programs in the Horizon League. To compare Division III SUNY Oswego athletic programs to Cleveland State's is as ridiculous as comparing Busbey to Babe Ruth, unless you want to make the argument that within their own scope DIII schools' accomplishments are just as notable as DI schools' accomplishments. In that case, the overall level of play doesn't matter so much and that improves the notability arguments for a D1 mid-major associated individuals, such as those tied to CSU, within their own scope. Seriously, the Busbey is completely notable as a swimmer, swimming coach, and swimming administrator. His AD status is not the sole issue here. That argument belongs with the other afd nomination which should be discussed separately.CrazyPaco (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Yeah, Mustard is a bit biased, so I agree his comparsion is pretty far fetched, but unlike Ruth to Busbey, he isn't comparing American Hero to an AD at a small D-I school. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but again, what really impresses me is Busbey's role in the sport of swimming. I know I keep emphasizing that even though it wasn't a major component of how the article originally read but his role in the sport of swimming is highly notable in my opinion. I don't want to get into something that reflects a flawed "because it exists" argument, but compared to the 1000s of articles on obscure European soccer players and articles about everyone who played even less than one season for a MLB team, clearly Buseby was much more important in shaping his sport than those individuals. He was an Olympic coach and a member of the NCAA swimming rules committee for something like 12 years. Those are not trivial positions, and this does not even speak to his accomplishments while competing or coaching at CSU. If Busbey was never an AD, I don't think it would detract from his notability at all to tell you the truth. However, his years as AD simply adds to his resume of accomplishments, but arguing against his notability because he is "just an AD" I think at this point, really misses the mark. I really think Woodling and Busbey debates should be addressed separately for the reason that they bring very different sets of accomplishments. In any case, I can't believe I've spent this much time on articles on either of these two men. I must really like procrastinating.CrazyPaco (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I have updated the Busbey article to include some of his achievements in the world of swimming. The Swimming World magazine article on his death indicates that he was a 5X diving national champion as well. This was not at the collegiate level (as evidenced by the NCAA records books) and I can find no records on the internet as to what level this was in (AAU?). This info should be researched and added to his article. The dates and events he achieved All-American status should also be added to the article, as should his coaching records. As AD, he also presided over a scandal involving the basketball team in the 1980s involving Manute Bol, which resulted in NCAA sanctions against CSU. In fact, the CSU athletic department was accused of supplying the NCAA with misleading information when investigating this case. This man was clearly notable in the world of college athletics and swimming. In my opinion, this article would have never been brought to AFD if the man had been researched more carefully.CrazyPaco (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because someone's Wikipedia page is #1 on a google search doesnt mean they are not notable. Otherwise, national champion coaches including Billy Donovan and Roy Williams would fail WP:N. Being a NCAA Division I basketball coach and an athletic director alone makes Woodling notable. Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 22:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kegulator[edit]

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

This isn't notable at all, the article has no references and is generally a mess. I think the author coined the word himself. Serviam (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - neologism with no indication of widespread use. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above; WP:NEO or at best WP:DICDEF, and unsourced. JJL (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteasper above comments and a based on a baseless article . doesn't seem to be for wikipedia.--@ the $un$hine (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The odd things you find in your watchlist. Anyway, fails WP:NEO; there is no evidence that this is anything more than a non-notable term. It fails WP:V and WP:RS through not having any, but on a quick search I doubt they will turn up. WP:DICDEF also applies. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:47, 28 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 with the possibility of recreation without prejudice in the future should the article demonstrate notability. Trusilver 05:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nutritional Gatekeeper[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic original research. Nominated for speedy, which was (rightly, I think) declined. There's a whiff of COI here--the primary author of the references is Brian Wansink, head of the Food and Brand Lab at Cornell University, while the author of the article is User:Foodandbrandlab‎ (talk). --Finngall talk 18:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unencyclopedic OR ukexpat (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like original research, no online references. Also reads as a definition or part of a textbook WP:NOTTEXTBOOK AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – My first question is why are we recommending Afd on articles that are less than 1-2 hours old? At worst, we should be {PROD} tagging. Second, the subject matter has generated enough interest to get at least 9 hits on Google Scholar, as shown here [15] , under that exact phrasing. Third, that exact phrasing, even generated hits under Google News, as shown here[16]. This in itself establishes Notability. In addition, I believe we have to give our contributors time to finish working on the piece, especially with subject matter such as this, at least 10 days, before trash canning the article. ShoesssS Talk 21:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What we need is evidence that the concept is used elsewhere as well. DGG (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – There should be more information in this article and that will be added shortly. However, this information is valuable. The USDA is using it as part of their nutrition education. In fact, a podcast about the topic can be found here: http://www.mypyramid.gov/podcasts/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foodandbrandlab (talk • contribs) 14:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 12:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*MTV[edit]

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

Nominated for AFD 3 years ago and resulted in a keep. Seems outright not notable by now. Searches on *MTV, StarMTV, MTV (And) Virgin media yield no userable source for this article except for a press release from virgin media. MTV Load seems to give a decent number of articles, but is explicitly described as a separate service. In short: Seems to fail WP:CORP, service section and WP:V Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 18:36, 28 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 Oral B. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pulsar (toothbrush)[edit]

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

This article contains no sources, and therefore it is possible that everything it contains is either plagiarized or original research. SeinHenker (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I will slightly dissent on the original poster's reasoning, however. The source issue is conceivably fixable. It's a problem, undeniably, but one probably better solved by editting than deletion. The problem that isn't likely to be fixable is the fact that it's not going to be easy, if even possible, to assert notability for a toothbrush. - Vianello (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Also, the subject is hardly notable to begin with. Do we really want every toothbrush and sanitary napkin on Wikipedia? FelisLeoTalk! 18:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Greenpeace seems to have a problem with the toothbrush [17] which may be enough notability. DCEdwards1966 18:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per DCEdwards's point, which is well-taken. I can't seem to find much else on the issue, which is obviously a problem. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Oral B. --Dhartung | Talk 23:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Oral B, as Dhartung suggests. Reading the article, it looks like someone who bought the product and is pissed off that the battery can't be replaced. Mandsford (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Mandsford. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 18:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Items Most Responsible For Consumer Debt[edit]

Items Most Responsible For Consumer Debt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Obviously WP:OR (unless it is copyvio). Cricketgirl (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Cricketgirl (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to advertising for a LifeWealth system of some sort. TN‑X-Man 18:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per this is an advertisement. --SeinHenker (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete thinly disguised spam, now nominated per G11. ukexpat (talk) 18:37, 28 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) --MPerel 01:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pin the Tail on the Donkey[edit]

Pin the Tail on the Donkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page is unsourced, uncited, and after being in such a state for four years, there is no evidence as to why this page should exist at this encyclopedia. SeinHenker (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep: The game is obviously notable. Being unsourced is not the same as being unsourcable. DCEdwards1966 18:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I marked as {{unreferenced}}. DCEdwards1966 18:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is kind of hard just to take the word of a wikipedia editor that this game is notable. I have never heard of it, and for all I know it was made up entirely. I try to assume good faith, but the article has been in existence for four years without citations. Thats enough to be suspicious about. Maintaining the status quo of possible original research should not be the goal of this encyclopedia. --SeinHenker (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it never made it to Germany. =) My comments are a bit descriptive on my thoughts on the topic, and if the game never made it to Germany, I can only assume good faith on your part. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Existence is not equal to notability, in general. But I do believe this article has notability, and therefore, should be kept. I'm sure references are out there, though they may be difficult for the average internet user to locate. A children's game like this that is known in societies over a great distance must have been described in some book somewhere. Even if it is not in every town's library or in Barnes & Noble, it has been published somewhere. Maybe a {{expert}} tag should be placed here.Hellno2 (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: The game is obviously notable in the US. And, while not useful for sourcing, the link supplied in the article [18], including its mention in a book from 1920 [19], proves beyond a doubt that the game exists. DCEdwards1966 18:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable children's game and should be easily sourceable. Arkyan 18:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be being the operable words here. Last I checked, the article has not been sourced for over four years. --SeinHenker (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I remember playing Pin the Tail as a kid... hmm, good times, it's a keeper. treelo talk 18:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense, but last I checked, this was not the unsourcedgoodtimespedia. I have a childhood memory of playing on a soccer team when I was 8. Is that team notable? Absolutely not. It was good times though...--SeinHenker (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The soccer team you played in when you were 8 is a bit different though. It's popular amongst various cultures in many countries and a lot of reliable sourcing at least back up the idea that many editors here are not being fed false memories of their childhoods playing games that never existed at birthday parties. Oh yeah, no offense taken. treelo talk 19:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is so notable a topic that it has been used as the title for a book on children's games. I can understand the nominator doubting an article on a topic that is unsourced and unfamiliar to them, but a quick search on Google books provides evidence of notability; negating the need for AfD. -Verdatum (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate you volunteering to rewrite the article (just kidding). But seriously though that does not negate the fact that everything in the article is possible original research or plagiarism.--SeinHenker (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply It's already been mentioned below, but I urge you to read AfD is not cleanup and AfD is not for Surmountable problems. Would you care to withdraw your nomination now? There is no shame in it. -Verdatum (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and close - I'm calling on account os WP:SNOW and ignoring the rules. Yes, I know what it means to ignore the rules. This is one of those things, rare though it is, that carries its own notability, but resources almost don't exist for it - I almost want to say it's ingrained into child birthday party culture, at least in the United States. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, I know ghits isn't a good AfD reason, but 141,000 non-wiki ghits, almost 2,000 gnews hits, plus the fact that just about every child in the US has played this game leads me to believe that notability is out there.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. C'mon people. With the time taken to make the AfD and all the responses here, five sources (or more) could have been added to the article. I used the supplied link to insert the first book on the list as a reference. Couldn't some others do the same? Let's get up off our collective duffs and fix the article rather than saying it can be fixed. With all the sources in existence it shouldn't be hard to find another one to add. Bah... I'll go away and try not to rant to myself further... --Craw-daddy | T | 20:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI'm amazed that anyone would think this is not notable. As has been said above, it's part of being a child. It's also a notable phrase, some meanings printable, some not. Oh, and it's used in child development studies, look at the reference in the article. The game is used in various learning situations also.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, not everyone was born in or grew up in the US. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreedm but everyone can use Google Scholar and Google Books, which I suggest show that it is notable.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I assume good faith, it is unfortunate that someone unfamiliar with a topic's culture would not use a search engine to verify same before nominating. AFD is not cleanup, and a possibility of being plagiarism is not a sufficient rationale for deletion. A claim of original research should be justifiable by pointing to unusual or surprising conclusions that cannot be cited. --Dhartung | Talk 23:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The rational for deletion is basically WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:NOEFFORT. If it's unsourced and full of OR, fix it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. I guess kids don't play this anymore, but it was very popular back in the day.... Mandsford (talk) 01:22, 29 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. Singularity 01:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing politics of the United States of America and the United Mexican States[edit]

Comparing politics of the United States of America and the United Mexican States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place for this. (Can someone quote a policy? I can't think of the exact one at the moment... maybe copyvio?) ninety:one 18:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Apparently comparison pages are all the rage these days. However, I do not see how they have a role in an encyclopedia. --SeinHenker (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - original research does not belong. Arkyan 18:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep i find some importance in the article...deleting is not an alternate for tagging and fixing....--@ the $un$hine (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research and synthesis. I can't think of any way this article could possibly be improved to avoid that. —BradV 22:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is original synthesis, to be sure, which is why it can't be kept as an article. I can appreciate that the author did quite a bit of work on this, although I think that people who are familiar with the American system can draw their own comparisons with the excellent article Politics of Mexico. Author might want to contribute to the article Constitution of Mexico, keeping in mind, however, that Wikipedia articles aren't aimed at explaining the world only to Americans. Mandsford (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are a series of similar articles listed today for PROD. Each one is by a new user who has only contributed to their particular article. My guess is that a high school government teacher assigned his/her class to post their term papers to Wikipedia. --Russ (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a synthesis of unrelated sources. I didn't notice a single source cited that actually makes the comparisons itself. WillOakland (talk) 22:12, 29 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!) 09:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sollog[edit]

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

Not encyclopedic, subject is not widely noted as significant.

Delete Here we come again to John Ennis, who created this article himself in December 2004 from an IP address, apparently as a marketing platform for his obscure websites. As a self-described numerologist, mystic, psychic, self-published author, artist, musician, poet and filmmaker he made some very fuzzy, not very notable predictions on the USENET a long time ago. Today, a page like this would be speedy deleted within hours, maybe minutes, then likely salted. However back then, CSD was more limited, Mr Ennis edited very agressively, Wikipedia editors became curious as to who this was and after a long edit war which some still recall as The Sollog Wars the article settled uneasily into its present form. What is notable about this topic? A few articles in a local Philadelphia free weekly newspaper? Some highly unreliable attributions to a handful of USENET posts? A passing line or two in the NYT and the Guardian in the frenzied, rumour driven aftermath of 911? I don't think this topic meets our notability standards. Ennis is not widely noted, nor has he done anything widely noted as significant. Instead, what we have here is a hit piece on a living person who only tried to use Wikipedia as a spam delivery node. This article never would have been started if he hadn't started it himself and the overall sweep of the narrative about this non-notable person is wholly negative. We have big conflict of interest and biography of living persons worries wrapped up in a biographical article about someone most folks have never heard of and wouldn't care to. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - oh, goodie, Sollog is back on AfD. The article is still thinly sourced, and the sources still do not show that this guy is notable in any way. I had hoped this would have been resolved previously, and I can only hope that this time, we say "So long, Sollog". Arkyan 18:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt please, as when he gets out, if not before, he'll recreate it. Earlier today I was about to delete anything sourced from Usenet (I remember the days, and you never knew who was who in the Sollog threads, definitely an unreliable source) or the Philadelphia City Paper, which would have left virtually zilch, as Gwen says, just a line or two in the aftermath of 911 put in for color. Definitely does not meet notability standards today. I also agree about conflict of interest problems which I predict (ok, shoot me) will get worse, with sockpuppets galore in the not too distant future, if it isn't happening right now.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Delete I have to say that I like articles about internet oddities like Sollog, James Harris, Archimedes Plutonium and so on. It's one of the charms of Wikipedia, but I suppose I must admit that it isn't particularly encyclopedic. In this case in particular, we have few sources regarding Sollog (especially since Usenet posts are not regarded as reliable) and a real question of notability. So, much as I hate to say it, this page should probably be deleted. Phiwum (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the small sourceable capsule to Notable Usenet personalities. --Dhartung | Talk 23:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect, non-notable kook. WillOakland (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no COI issue because Sollog's initial attempts at self-promotion were overwhelmed by numerous unconflicted editors who made the article NPOV. Notability stems from Sollog's extensive online presence as a prominent Usenet kook. As per this Slashdot story: "John Patrick Ennis, whose nutty predictions as Sollog (Son of Light, Light of God) are familiar to many usenetters...." (Usenet, for the benefit of you young people, used to be HUGE.) Such things aren't within the traditional beat of the mainstream media, but Sollog has been covered by the Washington Post ([20]), by the Guardian (two paragraphs in this article about internet predictions), and in the several Philadelphia City Paper stories cited in our article. Finally, it should mean something that so many Wikipedia editors spent literally hundreds of hours to make sure that websurfers could find a thorough and NPOV article about Sollog. The article has more than 2,000 edits and the talk page has been archived eight times. JamesMLane t c 03:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I brought up COI because if Ennis had not started the article himself, I think it unlikely anyone else would have done. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also please see the comments below about what could be Altman's COI as a published source. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per James M Lane. Gamaliel (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --DHeyward (talk) 04:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Somebody who briefly managed to gain internet notoriety (and no, I don't mean fame) for being a "psychic" and blowhard, who's the "author and artist, musician, poet, and filmmaker" of stuff that he has to publish himself and that no sober adult seems to admit to having consumed, and who's involved in legal troubles that (pace Anthony DeFino) seem boringly humdrum, seems only notable trivially, as an annoyance. Which would conflict with some clause of BLP. If he'd persuaded a bunch of "followers" to do away with themselves as a sneaker commercial, I suppose he'd merit an article; but as it is, sorry no. And before this is interpreted as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I'll add that (i) I like instigators of mass suicides (or suicide-murders) a lot less than I like poor old Ennis, and that (ii) as pointed out above there has been virtually no morbid (let alone respectful) interest shown in Ennis. -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wow, we are finally going to get rid of Sollog--all right, let's do it. I first became aware of Sollog in 2004 when he showed up on a now defunct message board, typing in ALL CAPS and claiming that he was a psychic and a supernatural being, that he had predicted 9/11, and, somehow even more incredibly, that he was a published author. These claims were all immediately debunked by the forum members--i.e., the 9/11 "prediction" is so generic that it could apply to anything, and Sollog had made similarly vague predictions about many, many, many dates on the calendar, and so his targeting 9/11 was nothing more than a coincidence--and note, this is his greatest claim to "fame"! And of course it was even easier to debunk his claim to be a published author, since his writings are all self-published. What was evident back in 2004, and what continues to be evident four years later, is that he is none of the things he claims, but merely a tireless self-promoter on the Internet. Well, big deal, anybody with a modem and an obsession can drive up his own Google hits, so this is no real accomplishment either. There is, however, some potential notability in Sollog's brushes with the law, but I think these are quite trivial, as he is not a celebrity and the people he's affected are not notable either, and the issues involved are relatively minor. Thus, Sollog fails the implied guidelines and the spirit of WP:CRIMINAL. His article here has been little more than a spillover of his vast Internet self-promotions, and as such, the article does not reflect any true notability of the subject himself. So I think we are long overdue in deleting it. While doing so will not discourage Sollog himself, it might discourage others who wish to fabricate a false online persona and then try to base WP articles on the Ghits. Qworty (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure: I was around when the article was started; you can see my comments on the first VfD that occurred. This article is a good example of a reasonable article (ignore notability for a moment) that started as an illiterate fanboy page. Even under the onslaught of many edits by multifarious IP addresses (and threats of lawsuits, and phone calls to Wiki founders), it was maintained in that form for a long time, with lots of factual information added from a variety of sources (the Philly paper, state arrest records, and Sollog's own websites and Usenet postings for examples of his claims); even a couple of images were added. I guess what I'm saying is if article is deleted, save history as an example. A2Kafir (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gwen Gale and Arkyan. MrPrada (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt - not notable, a couple of paragraphs in a couple of reliable sources don't make somebody notable (at most they seem to say that he is a kook). The Philadelphia City Paper articles should not be cited (leaving almost no sources) since they are not written by an un-involved 3rd party. The author writes, SOLLOG "was, after all, the guy I reported to the FBI for making bomb threats against me." Smallbones (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This hasn't been brought up before but it's true, Altman and Ennis had a drawn out locally public feud which did rise to what Altman described as a bomb threat. This arguably makes Altman's PCP stories COI, which means they could be slanted (whether they are or not) and the article doesn't cite independent sources covering what Altman's stories covered, or the interaction between Altman and Ennis. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I almost agree, but it seems to easy a way to nullify a critic. Would this apply to articles written before Ennis's alleged bomb threat? Doug Weller (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can say Altman's articles were highly critical from the outset. Now, I didn't mean to say all this nullifies Altman's stories, but only draws a shadow of COI worries over them if we have no other independent sources to verify what Altman wrote. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep, withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly Clear[edit]

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

Still no reliable sources about this album. Track listing cannot be verified in a reliable source; Valory Records website only has a "buy now" link. Page is different enough from previous version that G4 doesn't apply. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn per addition of sources. They're not too hot yet, but the Rolling Stone review is pretty substantial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:02, 29 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) 21:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

André Delhaye[edit]

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

Came across this article while going through a list of orphans from 2004. It hasn't been improved since then. It was previously nominated in 2005, but the consensus then was "keep and improve". Well, it hasn't been improved, and I can't find any existent sources outside of IMDB for him. He's only made a few shorts, nothing big, no prizes, and hasn't made anything for several years. Not notable.--Aervanath's signature is boring 17:26, 28 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell L. Clarke (politician)[edit]

Darrell L. Clarke (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NN local politician. Probably WP:Coatrack. Failed CSD as A7. Toddst1 (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal: Fabrictramp is right. Consider this withdrawn by nominator. Toddst1 (talk) 22:55, 28 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 a recreation of previously deleted material. -- Longhair\talk 06:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosting (sport)[edit]

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

a comedy bit referenced only in a blog is hardly notable. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Been CSD'd twice already in 24 hours, delete and salt the thing. treelo talk 18:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seen on TV. Only better references are needed.Hellno2 (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "seen on TV" doesn't mean "notable" automatically. "Seen in multiple reliable sources that are actually focused on the topic at hand" is more notable. I didn't turn anything of substance up. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:14, 28 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 all per consensus below. I also want to reiterate two points raised in the discussion that I think are very important: Wikipedia is not a battleground, and any discussion about improvements/changes to WP:ATHLETE should be taken up on the relevant talk pages, not here. --jonny-mt 03:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adalberto Hilário Ferreira Neto[edit]

Adalberto Hilário Ferreira Neto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:BIO, non-notable professional soccer player. There are professional soccer players and then there are notable professional soccer players.

WP:ATHLETE is being used to protect stub articles that have no quality about players that are irrelevant to the world of sports.

There are already over 10,000 articles devoted for soccer players and average of 3 new articles every day. Just on the Category:Brazilian footballers there are 2,313 articles and on the Category:English footballers over 6,500 articles. Wikipedia could become MySpace of Athletes given the great number of "profiles" created.

Please take note that in articles for notable professional soccer players such as Adriano Leite Ribeiro, the article contains real information and a reference section. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 13:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for deletion:

Adeílson Pereira de Mello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ademar Aparecido Xavier Júnior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ademar dos Santos Batista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Adiel de Oliveira Amorim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Adoniran Vinícius de Campos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Adonis Italo de Sá Barreto Feliciano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Adriano Bernardes Rodrigues da Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Adson Alves da Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alex Afonso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gílson Domingos Rezende Agostinho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alan da Silva Souza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete All. Non-notable all. This is like listing every single football player in the NFL and saying they're notable. I Googled each one and all but one (Alex Afonso) appeared as part of roster listing or chatroom discussion only. Afonso had a mention in a couple of newspaper articles as making a goal. Not significant enough for a wiki article.Renee (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All; per WP:ATHLETE. We do list every single football player in the NFL, and WP:ATHLETE says they're notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I object strongly to large group AfDs where the commentators have to separate out the wheat from the chaff; group AfDs are bad at at that. But I will grudgingly state that my Keep vote does not cover any of these that clearly don't pass WP:ATHLETE, some sort of consensus for which may appear below.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All: If they are all indeed professional soccer players, then they meet the current criteria for inclusion. Being a stub is no reason to delete. DCEdwards1966 18:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It needs to be confirmed whether or not these players have actually played for the first teams - just being on the roster is not enough to be natable - playing in a full time professianal league does.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, except Adalberto Hilário Ferreira Neto - These stubs should be expanded, but all appear to satisfy WP:ATHLETE. Rather than putting them up for mass AfD, I think it's more productive to try to improve the individual stub articles. Jogurney (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually he went back to Brazil in 2007-08 season, but he played 4 games in 2006-07 (actually at second half). Matthew_hk tc 19:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm withdrawing my votes based on the evidence provided. Jogurney (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is crazy. We are talking about 19, 21 year old people that couldn't possibly have achieved notability in their field of work because they are too young but yet they qualify for an article in Wikipedia.
The WP:Athlete criteria serves only to satisfy NFL and MLB fans and this is the consequence. Out of fairness we should have WP:Soldier, I mean the guy is a professional soldier that participated in a major league war.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability for notability guidance for football - Wikipedia:Athlete#Sportspeople fully applies "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a high-level, fully professional league" - it doesn't just apply to baseball and American Football!Nigel Ish (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these articles are about youth players (especially Adalberto) and do not pass the notability standard, but many of them cover older players that have played in professional leagues in Brazil and Europe. Jogurney (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a combination of two things: have reliable sources written about the subject, and are people going to look for the article. Perhaps WP:Athlete is too extensive, but WP:Soldier is stupid, given that there's a few thousand athletes covered under WP:Athlete and a few million soldiers, most of whom are completely undocumented in public sources. Age is also irrelevant; 20-year-old Évariste Galois is plenty notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how WP:ATHLETE can be seen as a valid way of determining notability, it was just invented one day in 2005, by an editor that retired over a year ago, see his talkpage, this question sums it up, but unfortunately the oracle of sports notability has retired. EP 19:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every page on Wikipedia was just invented someday. WP:ATHLETE continues to be cited and agreed with on AfD, and no one has created a consensus to overturn it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear by English peasant's comment that the WP:Athlete policy was simply invented, it was not a product of a thorough debate as it should have been. Also WP:Athlete is policy so it's enforced that means it can't be agreed or disagreed with.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 00:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're currently disagreeing with it on Wikipedia talk:Notability (person), so how on Earth can you claim that it can't be disagreed with?--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree here, many pages on Wikipedia policy were created through discussion debate and consensus, rather than dreamt up by one individual and held as a rigidly enforceable law from then on. EP 22:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no one rigidly enforcing WP:ATHLETE, and the page is not even semi-protected. There's just ordinary editors who choose to follow an ordinary guideline. You're free to change WP:ATHLETE, but that's requires more discussion on WP:ATHLETE, not disparaging it here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, you will have to agree that the WP:Athlete policy is being rigidly enforced at this AfD debate.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 00:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it was, you'd be blocked, and this AfD would have been speedy closed. But hey, it's always fun to whine about how unfair things are, isn't it?--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are making personal attacks probably out of desperation, that's bad.
Everybody is claiming WP:Athlete without displaying ANY reservation about that policy, or common sense about the notability criteria (WP:BIO). But you are right all I can do is whine about how unfair things are, because I can't stop WP:Athlete from being enforced.
If the WP:Athlete weren't being strictly enforced, those article would have gotten deleted per WP:BIO a long time ago, am I wrong?⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 16:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't stop WP:Athlete from being enforced, because consensus is against you. How like Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these players are more notable than others, but because of the large group being nominated for AfD at once, it is nearly impossible to discuss here. There are certainly some that only pass WP:ATHLETE because of 3 or 4 top-level matches, but others have played 4 or more seasons in top flight leagues. Why don't you close this and re-nominate the player or two that only have a few top-flight matches and then we could consider the wisdom of a "bright-line" 1 match rule? Jogurney (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these They all playing/played in professional league
ALL PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALLER ARE NOTABLE. If they were over the age of a youth player, and as unused member of a very notable professional team may also notable.
Adalberto Hilário Ferreira Neto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Jupiler League
Adeílson Pereira de Mello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Brasileiro Série A[1][2]
Ademar Aparecido Xavier Júnior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Portuguese Liga, Liga de Honra
Adiel de Oliveira Amorim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - J. League
Adoniran Vinícius de Campos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Brasileiro Série A[3]
Adriano Bernardes Rodrigues da Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Swiss Challenge League
Adson Alves da Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Liga de Honra
Alex Afonso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Brasileiro Série B (Marília, Guarani)
Gílson Domingos Rezende Agostinho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Chinese Super League
Alan da Silva Souza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Ukrainian Premier League

Weak Delete these, because no source these youth player have made their professional debut:

Ademar dos Santos Batista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Adonis Italo de Sá Barreto Feliciano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Matthew_hk tc 19:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ademar Dos Santos Batista - According to Futpedia, Ademar dos Santos Batista played one league game in 2004, where Botafogo lost 3-1 to Figueirense.Bettia (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The not the point of professional. After the game, he never played in fully professional league again. Matthew_hk tc 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sheer number of similarly empty football articles created by this user is staggering, Mario1987 has barely corrected, improved or even updated a single one of his hundreds of articles since their creation. He just creates more and more of these shells expecting anyone else to fix them up to stub class. The fact that Jogurney has done great work trying to improve them to a reasonable standard probably just encourages Mario1987 to create even more. The fact remains that many of these articles are dismally uninformative and often inaccurate. I just hope that some of the people voting keep will do some work to improve them, but judging by previous attempts to get rid of articles as poor as Amiraslanov it is not going to happen. EP 19:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
References
  1. ^ "CBF Brasileiro Série A 2008 record, Santos 4-0 Ipatinga, the no.17".
  2. ^ "CBF Brasileiro Série A 2008 record, Goiás 1-1 Ipatinga, the no.18".
  3. ^ "CBF Brasileiro Série A 2008 record, the no.5".
  • Keep Having these articles improves our coverage of Brazilian footballers. We do not work to a deadline and good faith contributions should not be denigrated due to concerns that can be summed up as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Notability concerns are a red herring , many of the subjects of these articles meet the existing notability guidelines for footballers. Catchpole (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all players appear to meet notability requirements. GiantSnowman 22:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Notability is satisfied by playing professionally: if these men have played professionally, they are notable, and therefore should be kept. If these articles are deleted, what reason is there to keep plenty of NFL players? Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no field of human activity where all the professionals in it are notable. Not politicians, not professors, not porn actors, not football players. In those sports where full professionals are a truly elite echelon, then they are probably are notable. We need some way of distinguishing, and I leave it to those who know the sport and country to separate out the top professional level--or possibly levels. Common sense is the basis for editing, and for policy and guidelines. If a small group want to propose their own more expansive standards, they are welcome to suggest them, but this is not their own private encyclopedia, and the rest of us have to accept them. I'd like to see a demonstration of true non-local notability even in their own country. Consensus may have been to tolerate this, but consensus can change, and its time it did. "having these articles improves our coverage of Brazilian footballers" -- having every professional wrestler would improve our coverage of professional wrestling, in breadth were all we cared about. We're an encyclopedia, not a player list. In US football, the NFL is the top level of its particular sport--are all of these playing at the top national level in theirs? DGG (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you 100%. But common sense here is nonexistent, the only argument is WP:ATHLETE.
The distorted WP:ATHLETE guideline sets the standards so low that basically every single professional soccer player from Brazil can satisfy that guideline, even athletes at the very beggining of their careers.
Another thing, English peasant points out that the WP:ATHLETE guideline was invented, it was not a product of careful debate.
Only 5 of the nominated players play for top national leagues, but were nominated based on the fact that they've had non remarkable or notable careers.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, because claiming everyone else lacks common sense doesn't violate WP:DICK...--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all in Matthew_hk's keeplist above - We have brought most of those articles up to stub class by adding references, links, infoboxes and career histories. Every one of the players have played in a "NFL-equivalent" professional association football league (Matthew_hk has listed them above - although Alex Afonso has actually played in the Brasileiro A and Portuguese Liga). I agree to deletion of the other two (Ademar & Adonis) since we have no evidence that they have played at this level. Jogurney (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
how many top leagues are there, andare some at a higher level than others? DGG (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are fully professional leagues in many countries (and some countries have more than one professional league). Among those mentioned above, the Brasileiro A, Portuguese Liga, Ukrainian Premier League, and J-League (Japan) are without question fully professional. The Liga de Honra (Portuguese 2nd division), Swiss Challenge League (2nd division), Brasileiro B (2nd division) and Chinese Super League (1st division) are most likely fully professional, but I'm not certain. Jogurney (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, you must realize that there are far more notable teams in world football than there are in most other sports (especially the ones dominated by one country, such as American football). For instance, any team that has reached the final of the UEFA Champions League, or UEFA Cup is undoubtedly notable. Well, that includes teams from... *breath* England, Scotland, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Romania, Hungary, Yugoslavia (back then), Greece, Belgium, Russia, Turkey, and Austria. *breath* So there are, as you might imagine, quite a few competitive fully professional leagues in Europe (and quite a few more in the rest of the world) - which is why you have all these "obscure" professional football players - after all, if we say anyone who plays 1 minute in an NFL game is notable, then so is anyone who plays 1 minute in a Belgian Jupiler League match... etc. ugen64 (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as for your question, are some leagues better than others? Well certainly, yes - here is an example ranking. (but it's more subtle than that - for instance, England's 2nd tier league, the English Championship, ranked 6th in a recent ranking of "richest leagues in the world" - above many competitive top-level leagues! ugen64 (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The soccer in Brazil have some peculiarities.
  • The players almost never are known by their full names (Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Adriano, Romário, Roberto Carlos, Zé Roberto), sometimes they are known by a nickname without any connection with their names (Pelé-Edson, Zico-Arthur, Dunga-Carlos, Tostão-Eduardo, Garrincha-Manoel). In a Google search, "Adeílson Pereira de Mello" returns 97 results [24] while Adeílson Ipatinga returns 5.940 results [25] and, as I could see, most of them refering to him.
  • The players change clubs sometimes 3 times a year, it's not difficult to find a player with 10 or more clubs in his curriculum; a lot of non notable players plays in a top division club along the career. In european soccer or in american professional sports leagues, it's normal a player stay for years in the same club.
  • There are a lot of fully professinal high-level leagues, Brasileiro A and B, and also some state leagues 1, 2, 3, 4.
The analysis of Matthew_hk is perfect according to WP:ATHLETE, Competitors and coaches who have competed in a high-level, fully professional league. But I have to agree with EconomistBR; using WP:ATHLETE criteria, maybe we have more then 10.000 encyclopedic players only in Brazil. It seems that the criteria for notability of soccer players must be reviewed or we have to be more condescending with athletes of other sports. (Caiaffa (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
yes, I realised the popularity of football in Brazil! I am not blind altogether :). I would suggest changing "high" to "highest", but that is probably too restrictive. Any ideas for some wording in the middle? Does "very high" actually mean anything more than "high" ? I think that might satisfy people. But given what you say about non notable people playing for very high level leagues, then the league criteria used elsewhere may not work here. Suggestions are up to you experts. DGG (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually the guideline is the argumanet on professional and notable. English footballers had been created to level 4, the League Two, so making the scope of "notable" two large. Matthew_hk tc 19:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice that Jogurney and Matthewhk are the only keep !voters to actually make any effort to improve the articles. I accept that most of these articles meet the specifications of WP:ATHLETE, but reject the legitimacy of WP:ATHLETE. I do however support the consensus based football specific criteria which can be found at WP:FOOTYN which most of these footballers would pass. My only concern here is the improvement of stub/sub-stub class articles, which would be a positive outcome to this AfD if the people voting keep tried to ensure that the content is of a suitable standard for an encyclopaedia rather than simply voting keep because it meets criteria dreamt up by one guy years ago. EP 22:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense but WP:FOOTYN is WP:ATHLETE with different wording so much so that WP:FOOTYN is not more restrictive than WP:ATHLETE. WP:FOOTYN's standards are so low and easy to satisfy that every single player of Brazil that played just a single match of either Copa do Brasil, Campeonato Brasileiro Série A and Campeonato Brasileiro Série B can have an article at Wikipedia.
That's over 67 soccer teams X 15 players (conservatly) per team = 1005 players elligible for a STUB Wiki article every year for Brazil alone. I don't know the turn over rate but it could be quite high.
The only thing stopping those STUB articles from being created is just laziness because they do satisfy both WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Brazil has a population of 187 million people and are widely regarded as the best footballing nation in the world. It can't be justifiable to delete players from the 2nd tier of professional football in Brazil if we compare with say Scotland, population 5.1 million (and to be fair no comparible record of success) where because they are an English speaking nation with many Scottish football fans contributing to English Wikipedia their lower division players from teams such as St Johnstone (2nd tier) and East Fife (3rd tier) have articles. We should be supporting efforts to improve coverage of the international game to avoid the impression that football is centred around England, Scotland, USA, Australia and the other English speaking countries. My only concerns are whether the articles are of sufficient quality as to not have a detrimental effect on Wikipedia's football coverage, and whether the articles will ever be maintained, especially if the players in question drop into obscurity. In my opinion both of these things are likely in cases of mass indescriminate stub creation. The fact that the majority of editors seem unwilling or unable to improve or update articles on obscure foreign footballers that they have never even seen in action, means that the burden of maintenence is on the creator, who in this case just doesn't maintain his own work, (too busy churning out dozens of new footballer stubs) or on one or two dedicated international football article improvers. EP 22:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Wikipedia's coverage of football is wanting in countries where English is not the primary language. I also share your concern that some users are creating many stub or sub-stub class articles for players in these regions that they do not intend to update or maintain. However, it is my experience that new users that follow football in these regions often come in later and upgrade the articles. I created several stub class articles about Bolivian footballers based on some reliable sources I found, and I've noticed two new users that apparently speak Spanish and follow Bolivian football have gone and improved those articles. I think these stubs can serve as an invitation to other users to expand the article, but ideally the creator will need to dedicate some effort to maintaining and expanding the articles he/she creates. Jogurney (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:ATHLETE is built around the notion that in well-developed countries, information about people playing at the top professional level is available from multiple secondary sources. Scanning ESPN or Yahoo Sports for any bench-warming MLB player establishes that fairly clearly. It is not unrealistic to think that someone in Brazil would look to Wikipedia for information on any player on the field of a particular match. Especially, if they read his name in an article on FIFA's CONMEBOL page, or any number of other sources that document the games. Neier (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has generally been held that RSs for notability must be non-local, but at least at a regional. Ever town newspaper anywhere has sources about its purely local figures. Is this the case here? DGG (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The case here is worse. All articles nominated don't have ANY information, they simply list player transfers so the issue of WP:Reliable sources doesn't even come up.
Now, since these players have no notability not even local sources write something about them so the issue of WP:Reliable sources may never come up.
Those article are doomed to be STUB articles with no information about players nobody hears about, but WP:ATHLETE doesn't allow them to get deleted.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦&;nbsp;Talk 03:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe one or two of this players have real notability, but according to WP:ATHLETE and the even more comprehensive WP:FOOTYN (Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure) that doesn't restrict the league level, they are all encyplopedic!?!. The criteria must be reviwed or the AfD discussions will be problematic as rules and common sense are in opposite sides. Caiaffa (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All except Adonis Italo de Sá Barreto Feliciano, Clearly these athletes pass WP:ATHLETE, so they should be kept. If people believe that WP:ATHLETE is wrong then a better place to discuss that might be Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) or work on Wikipedia:Notability (sports) to get consensus on that failed proposal. Discussing these 12 athletes here in an AfD will not do much to change the underlying notability standard in WP:ATHLETE, personally I think that Wikipedia:Notability (sports) would be a very useful standard if it could gain consensus. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment-WP:ATHLETE is like a malignant tumor that metastasizes by producing hundreds and hundreds of stub articles that don't satisfy even the lowest standards of quality and represent everything WP:BIO tries to avoid.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spare us the hyperbole. Stubs are an acceptable part of the encyclopedia. Catchpole (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - per current policy. Articles being "doomed" to be stubs is hardly a good reason to delete them. Stubs do their job. If they can be expanded, fantastic, if not, they quickly mention the basic information about a player (or other subject, depending on what it is). matt91486 (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Just to show how WP:ATHLETE is going to ruin Wikipedia I am going to create 4 low quality articles for 4 actual professional soccer players, and have WP:ATHLETE protect them.
  1. Luiz Henrique Koprowski
  2. Michel Vendelino Schmöller
  3. Everaldo Batista
  4. Eduardo Allax Scherpel

Done!! Nobody in Brazil knows them because they are just starting their careers, but for Wikipedia they are notable. They might as well create their own profiles since Wikipedia is becoming the MySpace of athletes.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your approach is constructive, but I'll mention that nethier Luiz Henrique nor Schmöller appear to meet WP:ATHLETE. They have only played a few matches in the Parana state championship and no one has shown that the Parana state competition is a fully professional league. Unless you have support for it being fully professional, I'd support an AfD on both articles. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, they meet WP:ATHLETE, they play for Figueirense, that plays in Brasileiro serie A (higuest level) and played in Santa Catarina state championship. By the way, all states championships in Brazil are fully professional and, in some states like São Paulo, even the 3rd level division is fully profissional. Only in Brazil, with ex-players, there are maybe 50.000 ore more soccer players meeting WP:FOOTYN Caiaffa (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I just noticed they played in the Santa Catarina state championship (not Parana). If they play in Brasileiro Serie A, there is no doubt that they are notable (it is one of the top 10 or so leagues in the world). I'm not sure the Santa Catarina championship is so notable, but if it's fully professional, there must be significant crowds that pay to watch the matches. If these players have appeared before such crowds, they probably are notable. I tried looking up matchreports for the Santa Catarina state championship and only found one for the final and it didn't show the attendance. Jogurney (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK, Paraná and Santa Catarina are very similar states. Almost every city in Brazil has one or more football team and hundreds (maybe thousands) of them are professional. The major part of the players earns less then $5.000/year, but they are professionals. About the attendance, here is a list of major stadium and there are hundreds of +/- 5.000 capacity stadiums. I wrote above about some peculiarities of football in Brazil and maybe other non 1st world countries. If we have a criteria that playing a match in a high level competition gives notability, we'll have a lot of non notable encyclopedic players. About the references for the Santa Catarina championship, I found those [26][27]. Caiaffa (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. I did find both of those websites, but unfortunately neither provides a matchreport with the playing squad or the attendance. I wouldn't assume that a team which plays in a 20,000 capacity stadium like Figueirense actually draws that many for the local state competition (but it's possible). However, if the Santa Caterina championship matches have paid attendance of several thousands, I have to believe the players are notable. How many athletes have 10,000 or 20,000 people pay to watch them play and yet are not notable? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you! Players in the Campeonato Brasileiro Serie A are notable, of course. I was talking about the criterion "fully professional league" in WP:ATHLETE or "fully professional club at a national level" in WP:FOOTYN and the fact that just one game is enough to frame the player. Believe me, Brazil have hundreds of clubs meeting those criterions and some players do not come to be known either in Brazil. About the matchreports, I'm trying... Best Regards Caiaffa (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FOOTYN's discussion of fully professional clubs at a national level is meant to address clubs like Standard Liege (a very notable club in Belgium) which play in top-flight leagues with some semi-pro clubs. The Brazilian state championships would not meet that standard, only the Brasileiro Serie A through C (at most). Jogurney (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, there are tens of thousands of players in Brazil, only laziness stop those articles from being created.I created 4 articles and is getting easier and easier. I can create low quality articles like sausages thanks to WP:ATHLETE!!! ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 22:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a violation of WP:POINT. I'm tempted to ask for a block, since you don't seem to have any sense of proportion here; even two articles wasn't enough for you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong, all articles created are in accordance to WP:ATHLETE, I included 1 source to show that I am not making that stuff up.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 22:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The selection of Everaldo to make your point is very strange. He has played a full season in the 2. Bundesliga (fully professional) and a minimum of 2 seasons in the Brasileiro Serie A (fully professional). I've cleaned up the sub-stub you created (most players do not begin their professional career at age 32!), so hopefully its now clear this player is indeed notable. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, notable. Everyking (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to current teams or default to keep. AniMate 01:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We are on our way to becoming the MySpace of Athletes!!! I was able to create 3 more "profiles" in just 30 minutes. A determined editor can easily create a hundred every month. This should raise alarm bells because Brazil has a huge backlog of retired athletes.
  1. Carlos Pereira Berto Júnior
  2. Edson Bastos Barreto
  3. Leandro Donizete Gonçalves da Silva

The other 4 articles created.

  1. Luiz Henrique Koprowski
  2. Michel Vendelino Schmöller
  3. Everaldo Batista
  4. Eduardo Allax Scherpel


Well, I won't be creating anymore articles, but the 7 WP:ATHLETE compliant articles I created just today must convince Wikipedia Administrators that tougher guidelines and quality standards are urgently needed.

Wikipedians are currently creating 3 new articles for soccer players every day with the total already at over 10,000.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 05:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior in this discussion has not been constructive. As I pointed out yesterday, you are creating sub-stub articles (which if done repeatedly after warnings has resulted in other users getting blocked). If you wanted to create a number of new articles about Brazilian footballers who have played in fully professional leagues, I will support you. However, it appears that you have not made an attempt to create informative or accurate articles (at a minimum please include a career history that begins before 2007 for players that have been playing for many years). Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ATHLETES is not policy but a guideline, and can be interpreted flexibly. It is not up to the people working there to decide how it should be applied, but to all wikipedians. If we think it does not match common sense, and there is a consensus about that, we can indicate so here at AfD. That';s what generally happens to guidelines that are not accepted by the community. The supporters of using it in its literal sense then have to convince the rest of us. DGG (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you but I don't think they have to convince anybody all they have to do is push WP:ATHLETE until every discussion is driven to no-consensus. That's what they have done here.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:PROF is just a guideline. As long as the people who care about the subject believe in it, and most everyone else doesn't care, it will stand.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there are potentially a lot of articles that could be created does not necessaraly mean that ATHLETE and FOOTYN should be discounted so long as adequate reliable sources can be found (and that may be the fundamental issue with many of these articles). We should not be afraid of stubs. Some of these players do seem to be enjoying significant careers at top flight clubs - Gílson Domingos Rezende Agostinho appears to have played 75 times in the Chinese Super League, the highest league in China, while Alan da Silva Souza appears to have played 16 times for clubs in the top leagues in Bulgaria and Ukraine for example. We should not discount them just because systemic bias means that there isn't a lot written about them in English, or because the articles are poor.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There over 3,000 sub stub articles related to soccer players, out of them I nominated 12 sub stub articles for Afd and got defeated. However when I decide to create 7 sub stub articles just to show how flawed WP:ATHLETE is, Jogurney reprimands me.
Having an article for such players as Gílson Domingos Rezende Agostinho is madness, he is just a successful soccer player, that doesn't mean he is notable. Also his article pure GARBAGE, no quality. Wikipedia is not a sports fan site or MySpace of Athletes. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The usual process when an editor is creating lots of substandard articles, is to give them hints and tips on how to improve their writing style. If this does not work then a bit of pressure needs to be applied. There isn't a procedure for people who make inaccurate and incomplete articles on purpose to prove a point. Explaining to you how to write a good article would serve no purpose, because you admit to writing rubbish articles on purpose, Jogurney was right to skip straight to admonishment. You have made your point now, several times. The more times you compare Wikipedia to MySpace the less likely it is that you will get any support if you ever get around to proposing an alternative to WP:ATHLETE or WP:FOOTYN rather than constantly sniping and deliberately creating substandard articles. EP 23:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The articles I created are WP:ATHLETE protected, are accurate and as complete as a 2 sentence stub article can be. You can't expect a 2 sentence long article to be complete. They show how flawed the WP:ATHLETE is since it doesn't set any quality standards.

How are the articles I created any worse than these?

  1. Jeferson Douglas dos Santos Batista
  2. Matheus Leite Nascimento
  3. Wellington Pereira Rodrigues
  4. José Eduardo de Araújo -Only 16 years old, we are the MySpace of Athletes!!!
  5. Odacir Pereira da Silva
  6. Pedro Paulo da Silva
  7. Sérgio Rodrigo Penteado Dias
  8. Fábio de Jesus Oliveira
  9. ...

Also the 7 stub articles I created are just as bad as the 12 stub ones I nominated for deletion but you and the other sports fanatics don't complain about those for some reason. You and others are just defending your interests, you don't care about Wikipedia. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 12:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, WP:AGF much? I've never watched a game of soccer in my life, and I can count the number of games of baseball and American football I've watched all of on both hands. I don't see any reason for anyone to be happy about people who create articles just to gripe about them. It's not a process that has much hopes for making good articles. Araújo may only be 16 years old, but who cares? LeAnn Rimes would have had an article when she was 14, and Évariste Galois has an article as a mathematician even though he died at 20. Age matters about as much as race and gender.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Supposed "over-population" of articles is not something specific to football/soccer, a quick count suggests there are well over 10,000 articles on players of American football, a sport played in a much smaller part of the planet than football/soccer...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Ronaldo started his professional career at aged 17 or 16, so age is a minor problem. A teenager made his debut at young age, usually because of the talent, not the league not "professional" enough. Matthew_hk tc 17:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations - Congratulations sports fans!! After 7 days you managed to drive this honest discussion to at least no-consensus just by repeating WP:ATHLETE over and over.

What an amazing feat, you saved from deletion 12 really low quality irrelevant articles just by saying WP:ATHLETE.

This AfD debate should close any moment now so good job guys!! You won!!

Wikipedia is turning into a MySpace of Athletes but why care, right? ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 21:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD is not a matter of winning or losing, but of trying to reach concensus. Rather than whining and carrying on, other editors took the opportunity to improve the articles you questioned (even the purposely poor articles you created during the AfD simply to prove a point). Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EconomistBR, AFD isn't a battleground and one's pride should never be considered at stake. Wikipedia has always been a magnet for game cruft, television cruft, bleakness cruft - you name it. But these are people, whose notability (i.e. appearances in professional, senior leagues) is demonstrative. A player could compete in Mongolia and it would still be a more than adequate assertion of notability should the aforementioned criterion be satisfied.
You've seemingly rejected the notability of some footballers on the basis that you're unfamiliar with them and/or the league itself. That's inherently subjective and an invalid argument. Yes, this is the English wiki', but the language of the project does not confine its scope to such that anything outside of the Anglosphere which encroaches into the dubious realm of "obscure" should be deleted. That our coverage of non-English topics is lacking, especially in its verification, does not rationalise the indiscriminate deletion of articles; it actually provides further reason for contributors to address the age-old "systemic bias" that has existed since day one. Advocating a scorched earth policy just because you disagree with established consensus is absurd.
Most of us haven't participated in the formulation of policy and guidelines; that does not make them invalid or irrelevant to us. Until you effect change through discussion and consensus, you should respect the status quo and continue building the encyclopedia. Indeed, you should not deride the opinions of others because you disagree with them. Trying to devalue the position of others, indeed to cast aspersions on the motives of fellow editors, is obviously going to engender hostility. Cut it out. Regards (end of rant, likely containing sp errors), SoLando (Talk) 22:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 16:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

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

The result was Delete. No third-party sources to assert notability. Black Kite 17:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Chayer[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. No indepedent sources where the person is the subject of the work. Only sources are being quoted in a local magazine and patents (having which should be considered trivial unless they have some special significance). Declined speedy turned to prod, contested prod. Cquan (after the beep...) 16:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments for this are already under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steven_Chayer Drewhamilton (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's also the founder and president of a major company. I don't understand how this is not notable. Cquan, in his glib discussion at me, says "anyone can get a patent." And regarding: "no independent sources where the person is the subject of the work"... Don't 3 patents under your name make both you and the inventions the subjects? Drewhamilton (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patents have the invention discussed as their subject, not their inventor. Also, patents are by virtue of inventorship non-indepedent from their inventors (especially in the US where inventorship by a person is a requirement under law for a patent) and are thus equivalent to a paper or article written by the inventor as far as WP:RS goes. Thus they don't qualify as indepedent sources. Hope that clarifies that. Cquan (after the beep...) 15:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT delete my comments. It's not off-topic or you wouldn't have gone and changed what you had on your User Page. Here is what I had posted and Cquan deleted. Hope that clarifies that.

"While I'm at it can I request my own deletion of part of Cquan's User page? His link to "Someone's request to be unblocked...and throwing a tantrum: [3]...absolutely priceless" is just unnecessary and mean-spirited."

And really, an inventor isn't part of the subject surrounding a patent? That's ridiculous. And a patent is the same as an article written by an inventor? Can you source that please?

Drewhamilton (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Well, not gonna get into an edit war on an AfD page. So for reference:
Actually thanks for pointing it out...I deleted it because that user's page got deleted so there's nothing left to see. As far as patents, this is how the Wikipedia article patent approaches it:
"A patent is, in effect, a limited property right that the government offers to inventors in exchange for their agreement to share the details of their inventions with the public." (i.e. the "patent document" is a disclosure by the inventor of information about the invention, making the inventor the author or, in some cases, the author by proxy)
"In the United States, however, only the natural person(s) (i.e. the inventor/s) may apply for a patent." (i.e. original ownership of the patent lies with the inventor, as is the case with other intellectual works such as articles)
Thus, a patent as a reference can be treated as non-independent from its inventor, which disqualifies their usage as a source to establish notability.
Cquan (after the beep...) 19:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Full support to Cquan's view, who requested my opinion. A Google search on "Steven Chayer" (29 hits) does not demonstrate notability under Wikipedia guidelines: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". IMHO the subject of the article has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Alone, obtaining three patents cannot be considered a sign of notability. --Edcolins (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time for this. I can go around requesting opinions too. (And looking for people who will support my side.) I don't care much about the article anymore. All I care about is that it's noted that you're unfriendly and proud of it. I like to keep myself busy MAKING articles instead of sitting around doing nothing but deleting them (although I do patrol vandals and new pages when I don't have an article in mind.) I've had articles deleted before but the editors I dealt with were not condescending and showed no glee in other people's foibles. Drewhamilton (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks to me like Edcolins' opinion was requested because of his patent background, not because he would support one side or the other in this discussion.GDallimore (Talk) 11:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A patent cannot establish notability of a person since it is not independent of the subject, nor does it discuss the person at length. Only one other source which might be relevant is mentioned in the article, but that doesn't discuss him at length (it's an article about interior design that has a brief quote from him) and is therefore not substantial coverage. GDallimore (Talk) 11:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Singularity 01:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wolf Hunter[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable fictional character from a series of little-known independent b-movies. A google search for both "The Wolf Hunter" and "Matt Hoffman" (the actor playing him) only turns up a mere eleven results. There is also no sources and no valid articles that link to it. CyberGhostface (talk) 15:40, 28 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. No need to permit this kind of disruption to continue. WilyD 15:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wall[edit]

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

Not-notable person, fails WP:N. Article also written as an advertisement and is inappropriate in tone. Delete. Bstone (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - article makes adequate assertions of notability. I don't see the justification for this nomination, and with the persistent speedy and quality tagging of this article, my assumptions of good faith are being...stretched. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as article writer). For some reason, Bstone has a bee in his bonnet about this article. It clearly demonstrates its subject's notability, with around 45 separate citations. There is nothing inappropriate in its tone, and it does not come close to being an advertisement. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - I'm not impressed with Bstone's CSD tagging minutes after this article was created. Given a chance to work on the article, it has shaped up nicely. Peter Wall is definitely notable and I recommend speedy keep. --Aude (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I have invited the nominator to give his opinion on the exact parts of WP:N that he believes this article fails on. If none are supplied, I would suggest Speedy Close if an uninvolved admin can be found to agree Fritzpoll (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - Notability and importance are entirely different notions (articulated by WP:N itself and, for example, CSD#A7). Notability on Wikipedia is not a common language meaning, but a content guideline defining a notable entity as one that has received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Such coverage is indeed significant, and evidence thereof (currently 36 citations) has been provided. Tone issues, if any, can be rewritten. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep—The notability criteria are clearly met by the numerous published references to him quotations of his commentary; there is a wider interest in the certain historical view of Vancouver that the article provides in relation to the topic. TONY (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability Asserted with multiple sources. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 15:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as mentioned above, this developer's notability is asserted with multiple news stories and other sources. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:53, 28 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 Chris lk02 Chris Kreider 16:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal Brand[edit]

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

Delete non-notable company with no distinguishing capabilities or market influence. An internet search yields just over two thousand hits (excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors, and the football club), and many of these are not related to this company. This appears to be a vanity entry which fails WP:CORP. Mindmatrix 15:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Blatant advertising. Townlake (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arsenal Brand is a company in Austin, TX. There is no reason to delete and doing so would be unjust. Arsenal Brand is by no means a "vanity entry". Reading the article would prove its innocence. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlg718 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. No reliable, independent sources in evidence to establish notability. Articles at this title have aready been speedied twice as blatant advertising, so I recommend letting this AfD reach a normal conclusion, with possible salting at the closing admin's discretion if the consensus is for deletion. (Oh, and User:Dlg718 has already deleted both the nom and Townlake's opinion above, so I recommend keeping an eye on him.) Deor (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP by not showing that it "has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as blatant advertising and non-notable. So tagged. Cquan (after the beep...) 16:55, 28 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 Close. I'm being WP:BOLD and closing this discussion. The article, in its current state, is a different article than nominated-for-deletion article. In addition, the consensus seems to be for a Redirect. Moreover, the original nominator has withdrawn his/her deletion proposal. Therefore, the discussion for redirect or keep as a seperate article is more appropiate for the Embedded marketing and product placement talk pages. And I have tagged both articles with a merger proposals and initiated a discussion at Talk:Product placement/Archives/2012#Merger proposal. If after a discusison at the talk pages, there's no basis for having two seperate articles, Embedded marketing will be redirected to Product placement.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded marketing[edit]

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

Delete: article appears to be about a concept promoted by the author's company. No sources provided apart from this company's website. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has been stubbed since the nomination, and the nonsense has been removed. Not sure this is the best term for the subject, but am willing to see if further edits bring anything worthwhile to it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think this meets Speedy criteria since it doesn't have contact info for an advertiser; there's a plausible argument it could be reshaped into a legit article. But I don't think it'd be a winning argument. Not notable, no reliable sources, and so on. Townlake (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A very notable concept [28]. Problems with the article will be fixed promptly. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If the article can be reshaped in the near term to include sources that meet RS criteria, as well as text edits that take this out of hype sheet territory, I'll cheerfully reconsider my opinion. Townlake (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A new type of marketing? Redirect I am changing my vote, as per the inclusion of excellent reference sources. However, this is not a new type of marketing; it is just a new name for product placement, and it should be redirected there. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patent nonsense is a criterion for speedy deletion. It includes "(c)ontent that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." The previous version of this article contained texts like:

    Promising and delivering end to end services, embedded marketing is setting new standards for customer delivery and satisfaction. In the ever changing Internet Marketing scenario, embedded marketing may prove to be a stable factor. The current set of complete solutions, which genuinely offer solutions, which work right from creation and implementation of a plan, till the plan shows results, the change in the standard of solutions provided was inevitable.

    Like Truman Capote said, "that's not writing - that's typing", and as far as I am concerned it counts. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - covert spam. If it existed as a term outside the original spammer's website, I'd say make it into a redir to product placement. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Redirect - changed my mind, since there is evidence of the use of this euphemism outside the original spammer's website, I support a redirect to product placement. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Per comments above.Renee (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-direct it's a valid search term and notable, as Brewcrewer established, however I don't think it's substantive enough to warrant a standalone article. Product placement appears to be a good target. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 18:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Product placement as others have said, and update that article to mention the 'embedded marketing' term. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Product placement as others have said, and update that article to mention the 'embedded marketing' term. -RatSkrew (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while I would like to jump onto this re-direct spree, I did perform a search through ProQuest on x hundred scientific journals within business, marketing and psychology without finding the term "embedded marketing". I don't seem to have access to full-length of the provided references, but what I have manged to read seems to me to be that "embedded marketing" is a synonym for product placement. And if it is just a buzzterm for product placement, then take the liberty of redirecting. Just don't keep this article; it says nothing. Arsenikk (talk) 01:46, 29 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), as notability is confirmed via consensus. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese government of July 2005[edit]

Lebanese government of July 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

totally disputed article not referenced, attack page Eli+ 14:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Containing disputed content is not a ground for deletion, and if this is an attack page, it seems to require further explanation as to why it is one. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We need a page on the 2005-2008 cabinet, even if the current version is inadequate. --Checco (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up if needed there are plenty of sources such as this on which to base the page on. (A also think the nominator has added an excess of clean up tags on the page, two or three would be enough). Davewild (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Nothing wrong with having an article on a government, even if it's a government formed in chaos and surrounded by controversy: if there are big problems with the text, cut it down to a stub and rebuild, rather than bringing it to AFD. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I assume the nominator has problems with the introduction rather than the list of members of government, something solved by reverting to, for example, this revision (or perhaps a newer one). I am also confused about two things. First, the nominator can't possibly believe that this tagspam is constructive or even likely to get results, and tagging an article for improvements while all but simultaneously nominating for deletion makes even less sense, as generally tags are not dealt with for weeks, months, or rarely, years. In any case, this is an automatically notable topic that our encyclopedia should have, and as such, it requires a strategy aimed at improvement. --Dhartung | Talk 23:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable per Everyking. Additionally, what adds to the notability of this article is the fact that the Lebanese government, cabinet, and distribution of ministers was one of the main reasons of the Hezbollah and other March 8 Alliance civil disobedience, as well as the reason behind the most recent conflicts in lebanon. Eshcorp (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kept. It doesn't take much any virtue of the imagination to see that this is a point-making bad faith nomination as has been discussed both here and externally. 2k2BlackWRX nominated the article only three minutes after having created an account. Non-administrative closure. WilliamH (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Porsche Club of America[edit]

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

fails wp:nn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2k2BlackWRX (talk • contribs) 2008/05/27 15:34:57

Comment: Probably a bad faith nom since the first act of the user was to nominate this article and his username shows a preference for Subarus. DCEdwards1966 18:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, clearly notable. Bad faith nomination from a WP:SPA account associated with a previous debate located here. During that debate, threats were made both on wiki and on the subject's blog that they would retaliate by nominating this article for deletion. The user name User:2k2BlackWRX is an exact match to a forum contributor at the NASIOC forum. This is hilarious, though, got a good chuckle from it :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Keeper76 and DCEdwards. This article could use for expansion and sourcing but I see no reason to doubt notability. -Verdatum (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article needs some sources included - it has none at the moment. However, it's clearly notable, so keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:17, 28 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Jethro Gibbs[edit]

Leroy Jethro Gibbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Listing after disputed prod. This article about a fictional character doesn't establish the characters notability, is unreferenced, written in-universe, and is largely original research. Removing the OR parts of the article would leave a stub; coupled with the lack of viable content and the contested prod, I'm listing it for AfD. Mikeblas (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep- He's the lead character on a tv series currently airing on a major network, played by a well known actor. There are issues with the in versus out of universe perspective, and other issues as well, but those are reasons for cleanup, not deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. None of those things demonstrate notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question In that case, what would establish notability? He's a lead character on a prime-time tv series. I'm not sure how exactly it isn't notable. I'd imagine that a character like this wouldn't exactly be lacking in third party reliable sources (not that I have access to them at the moment). Certainly even quick google search would certainly come up with something useful. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Answer. Non-trivial references from reliable, third-party sources. See WP:N. Right now, the article is completely OR. OR is not welcome here, so the cleanup you propose really amounts to deleting all the OR material; which is almost all of the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply I'm still not seeing why this warrants deletion. If it needs paring down to remove OR, then put up the tag for it to flag it for attention, or go for it yourself. If removing the OR leaves it as a stub for the time being, then so be it. I'm just not seeing why deleting this article is the right move. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - like IMDB maybe? What exactly makes the subject of yesterdays featured article notable - that's only a minor character? Neither non-familiarity with a subject nor the fact that an article needs work are reasons to rush to the AfD page. Lars T. (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Umbralcorax. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Umbralcorax. I.E. episode citations would be good for specific details etc. —MJBurrage(T•C) 20:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Although, I love the show the article still needs alot of work (which by itself isn't a reason for deletion). The sections need to be cut down some removing as much inuniverse only stuff and plot synopsis as possible. The article should show the character's notability through the use of reliable 3rd party sources (which it doesn't). Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Jasynnash2, Your arguments actually seem to describe a Week Keep with a request for cleanup. —MJBurrage(T•C) 14:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer I obviously didn't word it well enough then (please accept my apologies for that). The weak delete is pretty basic as the article doesn't have reliable 3rd party sourcing that show the characters notability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and does not provide any evidence of notability outside of NCIS, nor does it cite any sources for verifying its content, so merger is not an option. This article appears to be original research and there is no reasonable justification for keeping this article.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up all one has to do is go into any newsagent and peruse any one of a number of TV magazines for plenty of 3rd party commentary on any drama character etc. Gee, wonder how I can find them....only the among the biggest selling magazines around....Article quality is no reason for deletion, neither is a preponderance of plot material, just needs balancing is all. 10:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)
    • Keep and clean up I agree with Casliber on this one --Ben Sawyer (t-c-e) 23:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Right, all the other characters (Abby, Ziva, McGee) have pages, but the main character doesn't? Doesn't that make him less important than the secondary characters? Hell, Ari has his own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bingo182 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't really a reason for keeping -or- deleting an article. Let's stick to this article and worry about otherstuff when/if they comeup for discussion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Lead character on a series of over 100 episodes, aired for several seasons on a major US TV network. PKT (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:FICT, WP:V and WP:RS. The one line of content serves no purpose that could not be served by NCIS (TV series). McWomble (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooops. Looks like User:86.4.4.223 removed the AfD tag from the article (as well as the {{OR}} and {{In-Universe}} tags). I thought that this meant the AfD had closed, and removed all the unreferenced, In-Universe, and OR material from the article. Turns out that 86.4.4.223 was impersonating a moderator and the AfD hasn't yet closed. I've reverted the article to pre-86.4.4.223 condition until the AfD is resolved. -- Mikeblas (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I believe the most important 'policy' to consider regarding this article is this line from WP:DELETE If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. Here are a few sources that discuss various aspects of this character [30],[31],[32],[33] A Google News search using Gibbs and NCIS as search terms returns 743 results so I am sure there is information out there to source more parts of this article. --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The policy that matters is no original research. Google hits just mean the words appear on some web pages--they don't mean that those sites contain substantial coverage appropriate for use as references in an encyclopedia. Please see WP:GOOGLEHITS for reasoning about why your argument isn't persuasive. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, I was not using WP:GOOGLEHITS in the manner described in that essay, I provided 4 specific sources of information that could be used to source parts of this article and I just used those sources to add five citations to the article. My point was that other editors could use those Google News hits to add other references within the article supporting my opinion that problems within the article should be solved through regular editing rather than deletion.--Captain-tucker (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • """Comment""", Okay, Original Research is bad. So? You could edit the WWII, Roman Empire, or any other extremely important article to contain Original Research. Should it then be deleted? No, rather, the OR should be removed. The article then deserves a chance to get updated with sourced, non-OR research. Just because an article has OR does not make the topic automatically unnecessary, just poorly presented and possibly untrue. I don't care if most of the article is OR; just remove all of it and start over; don't jump straight to murdering the article without giving it a chance. 76.2.147.102 (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Bellahdoll[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 01:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy A. Moore, Jr.[edit]

Tommy A. Moore, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person. No references, and the company he's the CEO of isn't particularly notable either. Ironholds (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect The company is notable (at least Business Week thinks so: [34]), but Mr. Moore's notability is a bit trickier to confirm. It may make sense to redirect the article away from Mr. Moore and focus on the company itself. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the man is not notable. I'm not terribly sure the company is, either, and in any case no article on it exists. I would not be wholly opposed to a redirect to an article covering the company, assuming it were written and properly sourced. Arkyan 18:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --KurtRaschke (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he simply doesn't meet WP:BIO and the company doesn't meet WP:CORPJasynnash2 (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to meeting WP:BIO. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 22:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Studio Album[edit]

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

Although rewritten the article is still about a subject which was previously deleted through a deletion discussion. It still violates Wiki is not a crystal ball. It is non-notable and unreferenced to reliable 3rd party sources Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete As per the glassball gazing and bad titling. treelo talk 19:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and recommend moving to the proper title first next time so that the AFDs makes some sense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mainly because of the fact that this is a high status project by Britney Spears. The title and everything can be re-written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.25.54.31 (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just like any other album by any other artist, it will merit an article once Spears or her label announces an official title and track listing. Until that happens, an article about it can only be speculation that violates WP:CRYSTAL. Britney Spears does not inhabit some special sphere of notability unmatched by any other artist. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wasn't this already deleted once? - eo (talk) 11:58, 30 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. Singularity 01:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Tweaks and Optimisation[edit]

Vista Tweaks and Optimisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic. Can't see a reason for it to exist, not even as a redirect. 9Nak (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nope, got nothing for this. treelo talk 00:10, 29 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 deleted TWINKLE recreation of page. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 12:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renesaint castle of Ghyzcy family[edit]

Renesaint castle of Ghyzcy family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonsence - tholly --Turnip-- 12:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it was moved to a user page and deleted during Twinkle's saving time. So there is now nothing on the page apart from the deletion template. So it still needs deleting, but for a different reason. - tholly --Turnip-- 12:08, 28 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 Stanmore. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympia Milk Bar[edit]

Olympia Milk Bar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The Milk Bar is not notable Kkadams (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Possibly speedy delete as copy-vio of Vintage Milk Can: however, no copyright displayed on that web page. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment – Sorry about this – but I double checked the site you referenced and it is copyrighted. My guess is that they copied from Wikipedia. However, just to be sure I tagged article as possible copyright violation. ShoesssS Talk 18:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – No, not a speedy, the nominator was right to bring it here. I was able to find one 3rd party source, [35], but even they only mention the place in passing. Other than this, every other reference is either a Wikipedia or a Wikipedia Mirror site. ShoesssS Talk 12:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Changed to merge per below discussions. ShoesssS Talk 01:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Is the in-depth subject of a Sydney Morning Herald article by noted journalist and author Jack Marx and by Jacket Magazine [36].--Oakshade (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hey guy, I’m sorry if I am missing something here, but the reference you point too under Jack Marx is about the Alexander's Restaurant. Can you point me in the right direction? And the other piece is listed on the articles page and is dated over 8 years ago. One article does not make for Notability Sorry. ShoesssS Talk 18:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that. I'm spacing on the Jack Marx article. One of the responders wrote about it and I don't consider that a valid reliable source (will fix that). As for the Jacket Magazine article, it doesn't matter if an article is 8 years, 80 years or older in being a secondary source. There is no WP:TOOOLD provision in our notability guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL – no problem. Regarding the age of the article, you are absolutely right, like with all fine men/women and wine, we just get better with age! The point I should have been clearer with, is that it is the only article I could find. Sorry about that. ShoesssS Talk 18:43, 28 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. Singularity 01:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana popper[edit]

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

Would appear to be a neologism, which has only 286 google hits and no coverage from reliable secondary sources. Lincolnite (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, WP:NEO, WP:OR, WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 11:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Virtually no mentions outside Wiki mirrors, would appear to constitute original research. Gr1st (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everybody knows "poppers" are small vials of Amyl Nitrate. The vapors are inhaled to ease penetration and enhance orgasm. L0b0t (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another THC-induced article which does not belong here. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Times are changing. People used to get the munchies, now they get this sudden urge to write stuff like this. Mandsford (talk) 01:38, 29 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 Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 13:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Health of Infants, Children and Young People[edit]

Health of Infants, Children and Young People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable subject, fails WP:NOT. Perhaps merge into main article? (I couldn't find it.)  Asenine  10:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was nom withdrawn, keep. Singularity 01:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Cruise[edit]

 Done Nom withdrawn, per reference provided by Shoessss. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 06:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]


Asia Cruise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Ummm, I'm thinking... yes? Where in the article does it establish notability? That record did not chart on R&R or Mediabase, to the best of my recollection. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 11:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a self-promotion effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.162.157 (talk) 19:55, 31 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 --JForget 22:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent clothing[edit]

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

1. It has no references.
2. because there is no such thing - it's OR
3. It is a speculative technology that doesn't exist.
4. No notability established.
5. nearly 18 months since no consensus at last AfD nom, and no improvement at all.
6. It can easily be summarized in one sentence in wearable computing article
7. Can find no references saying intelligent clothing is different from wearable computer. Tech = sensors as well as computers Yobmod (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It seems unrealistic at this point, and is written somewhat unencyclopedically, and doesn't conform to WP:CRYSTAL. Even though using a policy as a reason to delete it isn't good, I think that this technology is too far off in the future to be writing about it now. Even though it may exist, few, if any, people wear this type of clothing at the present. Plus, if it's been deleted before and it is still inappropriate to have it in the 'pedia, it should get deleted. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 10:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:OR, WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 11:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems to be completely original research - Peripitus (Talk) 12:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree. - tholly --Turnip-- 12:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with redirect to wearable computing. The term has been thrown around a little bit in various articles [38] [39] [40], even a scientific conference report/book but in each case they refer to wearable computing. Danski14(talk) 14:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't like saying "per nom" but you really did give a grand list of reasons for deletion! If this was a new article I'd suggest it could probably be sourced and tidied up, but it's been hanging around for so long that I suspect it's going nowhere. ~ mazca talk 17:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe sometime in the future this article will be useful, but for now not notable and WP:OR. Jkasd 18:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In January 2007, someone said, "It needs a lot of work..." Didn't happen. Pure original reseearch, perhaps from someone who watched a marathon of The Jetsons. Mandsford (talk) 01:40, 29 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. Singularity 01:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of people youngest in their field[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of people youngest in their field (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously AFDed with a no consensus result, this list is an OR and trivia magnet, is indiscriminate and limitless, and does not appear to be encyclopedic. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - is apporopriate for an almanac or guiness book of records, but not for an encylopedia.Yobmod (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For now Wikipedia does serve purposes of an almanac. I believe it even says that somewhere. However I will copy this to a talk archive. You can do with it whatever you want.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – My first question, what is encyclopedic? Per Oxford Dictionary it is “…en•cy•clo•pe•dic / enˌsīkləˈpēdik/ (also chiefly Brit. en•cy•clo•pae•dic) • adj. comprehensive in terms of information, relating to or containing names of famous people and places and information about words that is not simply linguistic. I believe this article meets Oxford Dictionary’s definition. Why shouldn’t it meet ours? ShoesssS Talk 12:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is WP:NOT the Guinness Book, nor any other repository of loosely associated topics. Having no relationship beyond being the youngest "something" is practically a dictionary definition of the concept. Arkyan 13:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A wildly incomplete article, not encyclopedic. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. Trivial, bottomless and ill-defined. treelo talk 19:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete No improvement at all since October 2007, when it was last nominated. Could be a good concept with a good writer, because a good writer would have at least listed the persons' ages when doing an article like this. Again, this is not about people who are "youngest in their field" but rather about people who hold a "record" for having been the youngest to achieve an honor at a particular time. How old is Tatum O'Neal now, 45? 50? Although sourced, it's pure trivia, written by bunch of Guinness book wannabees. Mandsford (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created it, but admittedly let it go for a time. (I didn't even know of it's previous deletion debate) I mostly made it because of names that didn't fit List of child prodigies but were still, mostly, noted for early achievement.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:26, 29 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. Consensus appears to be for retaining the article. Arguments that the battle might not have happened are not so relevant for things which are legend or myth if the article and sources describe the dubiousness regarding the historical accuracy. Hence, they do not directly relate to the verifiability policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Grobnik field[edit]

Battle of Grobnik field (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No historical evidence for battle (see Talk page of article), seems to be a case of WP:SYNand WP:OR by editor combining a 19th century poem (not in English) with known conflict at the time - editor has just created Battle of Uruk which has no references anywhere Doug Weller (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The battle not sourced on a poem, but historical fact that is backed up by references. A poet used this battle as an inspiration for his work. THE FACTS WRITTEN IN THE ARTICLE are not connected with A poem.Egyptzo (talk) 08:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the lists of History- , Military- and Croatia-related deletion discussions. —Ev (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There seems to be no solid evidence for such a battle. A Google search, for instance, shows only 15 hits, all from Wikipedia or its mirrors. Madman (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is exactly the reason why Wikipedia needs such articles, so that the things not known to people, writing blogs and unscientific sources on the net, can be accesable. This is why Wikipedia is an encyclopedia- place where you can find all information. On the net you can find very little information even about the Grobnik field and Geography of Croatia.[41]Egyptzo (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THE SEARCH ON NONENGLISH LANGUAGES GIVES MUCH MORE INFORMATION AND MANY HINTS[42] [43] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egyptzo (talk • contribs) 13:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems particularly damning. There may be a case for the battle as a fictional/mythical entity. Leithp 13:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article as it stands is now about the legend, my comment is no longer applicable. Leithp 15:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just hit an edit conflict so I'll post what I intended to post anyway, although it includes Leithp's source. There may well be a legend on it, but I can't find concrete information about the legend. Egyptzo is correct that you find more hits when you don't use English, although a lot of those are Usenet and others are just speculation -- I don't know how many are about the car and motorbike racing and parachute events at Grobnik, but quite a lot of them seem to be, so I'm not sure we should consider them Ghits on the battle. Interestingly, I found this in his search: [44] which says, translated by Google, "It is a myth about the defeat of Mongola Grobnik field. This myth, however, is mentioned less and less, because the povjesničarima aware that this is being alleged to Grobnik field is not mentioned in any historical document from that time. And therefore concludes that this battle has never even played. There is, however, among sociolozima, social antropolozima and other experts for social sciences and the opinion that national myths play a positive role in the life and the very survival of social group". By coincidence I found that just after I found a categorical comment by a Professor of History at the University of Zagreb that the battle never took place. [45] - this talks about the use of history in the Yugoslav area for political purposes by historians, and I quote "it was said that the Croats defeated the Turks on the battlefield at Grobnik in 1242, which also never happened." That quote is from Professor of History Ivo Goldstein at the University of Zagreb. So yes, you will find people writing in the 19th and 20th centuries referring briefly to it, but it seems to have no historical reality. Doug Weller (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have no idea if the battle is fictional or not, but even if it is, I see no reason for deletion. Should we aldo delete article on Noah because someone says it is fictional character? Maybe it is, maybe it isn'y. Feel free to include both opinions in the article. But, to delete the article because someone says it is fictional - this is one of funiest things I red recently. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if battle is indeed fictional, and many people believe it is real, how do you expect them to find out that it is fictional (if it is indeed fictional)? I thought that is why we have wikipedia. Don't you think so??? --Ante Perkovic (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The battle is described as legendary not fictional. WP is not an academic medium in which to argue out whether it did or did not happen. The fact that people have said it did happen makes it the legitimate subject for an article. If there is a legitimate scholastic view that it did not happen, then that is a subject that ought to be mentioned in the article. We have articles on works of fiction, and we have articles on legends, so why not on this battle. The solution is to tag it for attention, as lacking neutrality, not to delete it. I do not speak Croat, and am not qualified to know what sources there are on its history at that period. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Leithp's comments are damning enough. Ivo Goldstein IS a Croatian, not a Serbian, scholar from the University of Zagreb [46] and he pointedly says Grobnik never happened and is a modern day invention. I googled "Grobnik, Battle and Mongols" but found nothing definitive on this battle except one or two references from a blog site which is not a reliable source. I did consult Tim Newark's 1996 book "Warlords: Ancient-Celtic-Medieval" by Brockhampton Press. Newark says on page 138 that after the Mongol's conquest of Central Europe and defeat of Hungary, Mongols raiders rode into "the Balkans, pursuing the Hungarian King Bela [IV]" in the winter of 1241 when news of the great Khan's death reached them and the local Mongol leader Batu Khan called off his campaign into Europe. Its not easy to see the Mongols fighting a battle against the Croats in 1242 when they had to retreat home. There are several WP:N and WP:V problems concerning this article. I personally think Grobnik is a myth but the article claims it was a historical event from 1242. Leoboudv (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the question of fictional vs. non-fictional is NOT relevant. There are many accounts of mythical battles throughout history and Wikipedia. The Illiad is a fictional war, with arguments still raging to this day regarding its actual occurrence. However, the Illiad is still considered a WP worthy topic. In this matter it is really a question of citation to avoid the WP:OR claim (I don't agree with the WP:SYN nomination, though I understand why it was brought up). Unfortunately, the sources provided for this article are not apparently in English. However, this has not stopped many other articles from making it into WP. Since I can't read those sources personally, I am forced to assume good faith and hope they are legitimate sources with relevant information. If anyone can disprove that, I'll change my opinion. In the meantime, there is no reason to delete this just because somebody couldn't find a Google hit. Google doesn't know everything! Trippz (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep legendary is fine, if there's major works written about it. seems there are. It doesnt have to be historical, just to make the historical status clear.DGG (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentThe problem is that so far the editor steadfastly insists it is historical, that so far no one has found 'major works' about this at all, and that the editor tells me himself (see my talk page) that he "will try to make references as much as possible, but this would be hard since most of my knowledge comes from documentaries and travel" and "I have read many, many books but there were so many that I do not know were to start and search because much time had passed and you come to think that some facts you just happen to have read somewhere in some book but you can find wich one." I don't mind having an article on 'Legend of the Battle of Grobnik' but it needs sources for the legend, and we just don't have those. So what do we do if we don't have sources? We can't just shrug our shoulders and say they must be out there somewhere. This isn't at all like the Illiad. We have a Classical source for that. In this case, the 'historical documents' mentioned in the lead just don't exist. The article's creator couldn't find them, his source Hitrec evidently doesn't mention any, a Croatian professsor presumably knows of none, etc. Doug Weller (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The editor knows wery well things that he writes about, in contrast to some other users.Egyptzo (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment User:Egyptzo also added the comment above in an edit summary, he is referring to me. I feel deeply wounded, I shall go lie down. Seriously, this doesn't help with the problem about sources. Knowledge is nice, but Wikipedia wants reliable and verifiable sources. If they can be provided, great.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those are understandable problems but they are problems for a kept article. I have added Template:accuracy and template:more sources because the article has problems... but they can be fixed. If one editor is a problem you can always get outside input. gren グレン 10:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment

The greatest problem here is that some users in Wikipedia are more concerned on deleting or removing articles than creating or improving them. If someone finds a relevent source that claims that the battle is not real, but fictional, he should create a new paragraph in the article about this battle and name that paragraph controversy. If we are going to remove such articles, then for example, the whole article about Mycenaeis should be revised and the articles about the Presegonid and Atreid dynstyes deleted, which would be a stupid move. Egyptzo (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- What about the current sources (I see two)? Again, I'm not familiar with those sources and probably couldn't read them if I was (Which is not really a requirement for WP). Are they verifiable at least? Again, from my standpoint and not knowing anything of this subject, what I see is an article with limited citation but I would have to assume good faith on the part of the contributor. I agree we shouldn't just shrug, but there are two sources in the article, that is, unless I'm missing something. There are some notable problems with the article that smack of WP:OR, mostly in the overview section and they should be rewritten to remove POV terms like "Unfortunately" and "so important", but those are easy fixes. The Template:accuracy was a good call, but perhaps someone can also extend a hand out to some of the non-English wikipedia projects and we could get something more from them on this topic (if there is anything to be got), since this is from a non-english place of origin and apparently a fairly localized tradition. My invoking of The Illiad was simply to point out that the fictional vs. non-fictional argument in unimportant and should not be a consideration for nomination of deletion. As for source from poem it could be compared to The Song of Roland, a poem which is also of dubious historical accuracy considering the date of its origin. I agree that there should be sources of some type to validate this folktale/history/legend, but as I said, I see two cites already there. It seems this may be a localized traditional story. Clarifying its status in the article is important. That however, does not mean it is not notable enough for WP. The article requires more verification for improvement, but I'm not sure a delete is required based upon the "No historical evidence for battle.." nomination. Finally, contributors should never take AfD too personally, the article is a bit weak and needs work. Please limit the personal attacks. Ultimately, as for the article, I don't think it should be axed if it can be saved. Trippz (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given that the consensus is "Keep, with a focus on the legend", I have edited the article, removing some of the opinion-ish sentences, and adding a reference that at least one scholar feels that the battle "never happened". Madman (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Battle is fictional [47] but for Croats it has become real. First "sources" about battle are from 16 century when Frankopan nobles has given many Croatian viceroys and heros in battle with Turks. During this time Ivan Tomašić and Antun Vramec has started to write how Frankopan family has been important in 13 century (which is historical revisionism). In 19 century Dimitrija Demeter has used data from 4 historical "sources" from 16 and 17 century to write myth about battle. --Rjecina (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI think it is now much better and if left with the focus it now has, and no more mention of historical documents without clear proof, etc -- that is, if Egyptzo is happy to leave it as a legendary battle, I'll be happy. One other issue though is the infobox and the categories, as they imply that it was a real battle. Rjecina's comments are pretty convincing, thanks for those. Maybe a bit like the British King Arthur, only this is a battle not a person?.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied, although the battle was mentioned as early the 14th century, just a century after the battle and not in connection with Frankopani. But never mind that. The only problem is that those people referenced, who claim that the battle is just a myth tend to throw away the old, even historical battles, classify them as just a myth, and claim that Domovinski rat was the only very heroic act in Croatian history(sadly). It was long believed that the Siege of Troy was just a myth, but then recent archaeological excavations had revealed that the city was indeed under siege in the time told by Homer. The Mycenaen kings Atreus and his son Agamemnon were also treated as mythical caracters, and still are, although the Hittite records mention them. Piramesses was also by some believed to be a creation of utopian imagination, but this was deproved, and is known that the city was real. Probably future discoveries will finaly reveal that the battle happened, but until then, unfortunately, many people can indeed say, that it is just a legend.Egyptzo (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it is wrong place for this discussion but.. In 1241 Mongols has defeated German and Polish forces. In 1242 they have defeated Hungarian forces, but if we believe that battle is history not myth they have been defeated by Croats. It is important to notice that this first victory against Mongols nobody in 13 century Europe has noticed !!!
For creation of myth I have used data from Croatian wiki which clearly state that Dimitrija Demeter has used sources from 1582, 1588, 1696 and 1760 to create story about Battle of Grobnik field. I know 1 "older source" (14 century) but he is not used for creation of myth and even this sources is POV because it is writen by person which has worked or recieved gifts from Frankopan nobles. --Rjecina (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIt is now much better, but the citation requests need to stay about the 14th century documents, etc until sources are provided, and if none can be provided within a reasonable amount of time unsourced claims about documents need to be removed. And I'm not quite sure about "Despite all controversies, many people do believe that the battle indeed happened and those who constantly claim that it was just a myth, were, and still are, unable to prove it as such." I appreciate the new text on the infobox.Doug Weller (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have to agree with that. That particular statement is worded as if to prove a negative. I suggest removing the second part of that sentence and leaving it as: "Despite all controversies, many people do believe that the battle indeed happened." -- Trippz (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per changes in the article and help from other editors, convincing me that although I do not believe there was such a battle, and I'm not sure what the article's creator will do when he returns, there clearly are 2 poems and a legend -- I think we need some more details of the legend and some quotes from the poems, but that's no reason not to keep the article, nor are my concerns about any future actions of the article's creator. So I withdraw the nomination and thank the other editors for their help and patience both with this AfD and editing the article.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.Comment I think User:Egyptzo may have returned as User:78.2.119.108 and edited the article, including deleting the AFD template. Which is now replaced by User:Madman, thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If a legend or supposed battle has received the necessary level of attention from sources to qualify for inclusion, then there's no grounds for deleting it. It just needs to be accurate and not overstate the case for the battle's existence. Everyking (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Egyptzo again removed the AfD template and edited the article in a way that seems once again to be overstating the evidence for the battle's existence. Doug Weller (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I should have looked at the talk page first, as I see User:Egyptzo says "The consensus is that it was legendary, not that it never happened, although bsome scolars are persistant in their negative claims. I do not see a point of discussing it any further." Doug Weller (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 per WP:NN. --Selket Talk 04:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use Case Maker[edit]

Use Case Maker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Orphaned article of questionable notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Use Case Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Cordless Larry (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (both) - seem to be a non-notable pieces of software. And an article that only list it's capabilities is simply advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 12:00, 28 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 per WP:COPYVIO (CSD#G12). PeterSymonds (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion: 2920, The Last Years of the First Era[edit]

The Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion: 2920, The Last Years of the First Era (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be some fan fiction. Delete per WP:NOT.  Asenine  07:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:COPYVIO (CSD#G12). PeterSymonds (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norman J. Anderson[edit]

Norman J. Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Complete copy-paste from here. Also with no assertion of notability. Chris M. (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Added speedy tag to article accordingly. M♠ssing Ace 07:43, 28 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, defaulting to keep. Although there are a number of merge proposals below, there does not seem to be a consensus on any one way to handle this data. Further discussions about any potential merges can be handled through the regular editing process. --jonny-mt 04:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World's largest urban agglomerations[edit]

AfDs for this article:
World's largest urban agglomerations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Of all the various lists of cities by various definitions, this one is particuarly problematic. By its own admission, it cannot be relied upon as fact, and it is essentially a repost of some data compiled as part of the United Nations World Urbanization Prospects report, which was not focussed on defining and listing agglomerations. The figures are not consistent with the definition of "agglomeration". Rarely have I seen a talk page which so comprehensively laments the many failings of its article. List of metropolitan areas by population may not be perfect, but it is essentially pursuing the same goal, and is more useful and better defined than this article. Deiz talk 14:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep List is sourced to the United Nations World Urbanization Prospects report. The article clearly states the limitations of the information given. There is no need to hide this information from readers. --Polaron | Talk 20:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can explain how Tokyo is listed as 35,676,000 (thats an agglomeration) but Seoul is listed as 9,796,000 (city proper, not even vaguely close to the population of the actual agglomeration) I'd be interested to hear it. The information here is largely useless and the article title is nonsense, as there is no attempt to include only agglomerations. It would also have been honest to note that you are a frequent contributor to and de facto custodian of the article, hence don't want to see it deleted. Deiz talk 00:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the list is the UN's classification and the UN's terminology. The list makes no claim to be anything more than that. --Polaron | Talk 02:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So given that it is not listing agglomerations, but a mish-mash of various different definitions of cities, how can you justify the article as currently titled? Seems empiricially obvious that a list containing cities proper should not be presented as a list of agglomerations, in the same way that a list of famous women would not contain famous men. I still see little or no merit in presenting the list as a Wikipedia article, even if - as would have to happen if it is kept - it were renamed. Just because the data was compiled and presented by the UN, it is not automatically suitable as the primary subject of a WP article as your last comment seems to suggest. Indeed, straightforward reposting of lists from magazines and reports has been a copyright issue in the past. Deiz talk 04:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The UN calls it a list of agglomerations. Are you saying Wikipedia editors should be the one to decide how to define these areas? --Polaron | Talk 16:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cities proper are not agglomerations, hence the title is grossly inaccurate, and the data is hopelessly mismatched. I'm saying we shouldn't listify any old crap the UN churns out. Deiz talk 22:41, 25 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, Singularity 05:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - to something more specific. UN list of xxx?. List of xxx in the UN yyy report? With explanation of definition problems.
  • Delete The talk page for the article is worth reading, if that many people are dissatisfied with the utter inaccuracy in this article just delete it. The UN is rarely even the best source of data on the UN itself, let alone other countries. L0b0t (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please go through the history more carefully. Most of the arguments on the Talk page were during the time that List of metropolitan areas by population was nominated for deletion and the result was for it to redirect to the already existing UN list. That article was only recently restored. Also note that if one goes through the UN report, the primary sources for definitions and bases for population figures are the various national census authorities themselves. The UN only tabulated the figures and did forward projections. There is nothing inaccurate about the list as all definitions are clearly listed. --Polaron | Talk 15:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then the question is, what source to use for that single article? You should also note that metropolitan area, urban area, and urban agglomeration are all different concepts (and different articles too). Are you saying those three articles should also be merged? --Polaron | Talk 15:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Yes, that is precisely what I am suggesting, 1 article with data listed 3 ways. Or, is there a way to make the table user-sortable? That is, could we have 1 table that lists the data, and have it sortable by urban area, agglomeration, or metro area by clicking on a column header? L0b0t (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as sourcing, List of metro and list of Urban areas are both single source. Urban is from http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua2015.pdf and Metro from http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/cityfutures/papers/webpapers/cityfuturespapers/session3_4/3_4whicharethe.pdf. Both would seem, at cursory glance, to be asking for copyvio troubles. The Agglomeration is sourced to the UN but the parameters across the board seem confusing. L0b0t (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and continue to discuss how to do it on the talk page. the actual topic is notable, & different enough from related articles. DGG (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete How can you compare metro areas with city propers. There's too many of these "Biggest City" pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BOBOBOB133 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of urban areas by population or Rename to something like "List of urban agglomerations defined by UN World Urbanization Prospects" or Delete. The UN have provided two datasets using the same term: Demographic Yearbook revised every year and World Urbanization Prospects reveised every two years.

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dyb2.htm

http://esa.un.org/unup/

In both DYB and UNUP, urban agglomerations in the United States are the same with urban areas defined in the USA census, while urban and metropolitan area definitions are used as urban agglomerations in DYB and UNUP for Canada, respectively. For Japan, UNUP uses both metropolitan and urban (DIDs) definitions in confusion, while DYB does not record any urban agglomerations. For Germany, UNUP 2003 uses metropolitan definition (Rhein-Ruhr, Rhein-Mein, etc.), while UNUP 2005 and UNUP 2007 only use city proper definition. The term "urban agglmerations" used by the UN is inconsistent, but seems usually referred to urban (or urbanized) areas (as appears in the census of India).
Urban (urbanized) areas and metro (or metropolitan) areas are different. But I think there is little difference between urban areas and urban agglomerations, when used by some nations' censuses.Aurichalcum (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP: no consensus to delete. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusters International[edit]

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

Contested prod. Notability not proved, but the main problem is that the article was obviously written by someone within the company, for the sole purpose of promoting the company. The author has not responded to warnings about COI and spam. Yes, there are references, but I still don't think this passes muster and is besically a puff piece. The main "facts" in the article annot be verified, and comon sense says that only someone with inside knowledge would have access to these "facts."There is not independent verification of these "facts." - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that notability is established, but I agree with the nominator that the article appears to have been written by a company employee. If the article survives, it will need copyediting. In general, the assertions in the article appear plausible, but any person or organization considering using this company or any other public adjuster such as should carefully evaluate whether the value that it adds is more than the fee it charges. --Eastmain (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Seems notable enough. Need fixing and clean-up, but not deletion.Yobmod (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. The issue has to do with the History...the facts cannot be validated from an outside source. If that was removed would it be ok.AI Shawn (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The above comment was made by the original author. As you can see, he uses the initials "AI" (as in Adjusters International) in his user name. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I'm curious how small businesses, despite being notable, can verify using solely outside sources. Unlike large entities, they don't have media coverage such as is generated by a Dell or Microsoft. Is this issue addressed somewhere? Judywolf (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If they can't be verified, they probably don't meet notability standards. Like this company. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I disagree. Notability has been established (in addition to the work they've done, take a look at the references/publications that quote their executives -- NY Times, Christian Science Monitor, trade journals). I don't think the question should be whether to delete the entry for lack of notability, but rather how to help the author achieve neutrality. My thought is that at this stage, guidance is in order. The author's comments indicate a desire to conform to Wikipedia standards. Any thoughts on how to help him achieve that? - Judywolf (Talk to me) 11:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.152.143.130 (talk) [reply]
  • Keep. Their work with FEMA seems to have gotten them substantial notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Housekeeping note: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AI Shawn - SQL and I think AI Shawn and Judywolf are two different people, but both user accounts have made no edits outside the article and this AFD. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comments in the sockpuppet discussion prove that the article was primarily written by two employees of the company, and that it is their stated goal to figure out some way to get a Wikipedia article about their "small notable company." Since their information cannot be independently verified and the vast majority of the article is severely compromised, I fel that the remainder of the article is not enough to show that the company is notable. And that's why I nominated this article for deletion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:COMPANY and WP:V. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the Orange One. Putting aside the fact that the article as it stands barely avoids speedy deletion, I could find no indication that this company is notable outside of a small local area. The most visible citation I found was this USA Today article, which only quotes their CEO when discussing terrorism insurance. --jonny-mt 04:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep they would seem to be far more than local as this claim is made, Adjusters International is the nation's largest claims consulting/public adjusting organization with offices throughout North America at the bottom of this industry journal article here. They certainly get plenty of Google news archive hits [49]. RMHED (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mondegreen, where reference to this video's director (and some of the language in this article) already exists.

Obviously many people feel strongly about this video, which may be why a number of contributors who do not display much other involvement on Wikipedia have arrived to offer their opinions. For the benefit of those who may be otherwise unfamiliar with the deletion discussion environment, let me explain briefly that the job of an administrator closing a deletion debate is to determine consensus as developed in the argument by looking at strength of argument and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. Unfortunately, many of the opinions offered are not based upon the issues listed at our deletion policy, but are rather arguments based from side issues that are not relevant to the question of whether or not a page on Wikipedia should be deleted. For example, as the umbrella article on notability indicates, "Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with it." For that reason, while arguments based on fame have been considered in the question of whether deletion or redirection is more appropriate, they have had to be otherwise disregarded as not related. Likewise, the fact that the article may have attracted some viewers to Wikipedia is irrelevant in determining whether or not the article is appropriate, though usefulness may factor in to the question of redirecting. Other arguments that are problematic for reasons explained at the informative essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions have also been advanced.

The core policies and guidelines at consideration in this AfD after unrelated issues are removed are "what Wikipedia is not" and the notability guidelines for web content (though, of course, other policies & guidelines matter as related to that, including "Verifiability" and "Original research". Consensus--which does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome, but only that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome--is clear that within this framework, this material is notable enough for inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia, but that there have not been presented sufficient "multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources" to verify that the article is notable enough to stand alone. In addition to those contributors explicitly suggesting merge and redirection, contributors arguing for deletion (Ashiwin) and keep (UrsoBR) have also indicated that this outcome is acceptable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Lava[edit]

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

Article is not encyclopedic in character. It is more to self-promotion of Buffalax (see WP:SOAP), and Wikipedia is not a place for original inventions (see WP:NOT#OR), please feel free to discuss this matter below. Kotakkasut (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But if the consensus is to delete, I'll live. -- Quartermaster (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kewl beans. leave it here. i used it to look up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.252.238 (talk) 07:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for keeping: I think there was a bit of work put into the article (e.g., the translations of some of the lyrics). I stumbled upon the article and found it useful and interesting. -- Quartermaster (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. There are thousands of viral videos which are more significant than this one, but they don't have their own pages, plus this article is like an original invention, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. In short, this article would be appropriate in a Buffalax fan site, not Wikipedia. 118.100.10.79 (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey, thanks for all of the feedback, but I would like to ask for your help, when commenting about whether to keep or to delete this article, please state the reason on why this article should be kept/deleted from Wikipedia, because I don't want to offend anyone if they are unsatisfied with the verdict afterwards, thanks... Kotakkasut (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Malay/Tamil conflict of interest and lack of disclosure comment:

A tiny bit of research indicates that there is a potential conflict of interest and lack of disclosure element in this AfD request. I'm not sure that the motivation behind the request to delete this article is because the article "is not encyclopedic in nature" or if the subject (making fun of Prabhu Deva Sundaram's song, "Kalluri Vaanil" from the Indian Tamil movie, Pennin Manathai Thottu) is bothersome. The request to delete should be based on honest and clearly stated concerns, and I don't think that it is in this case. If you don't like the fact that a movie/culture/language is being lampooned, state that as your reason. If I'm wrong here, feel free to correct me. -- Quartermaster (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify here. There is NOTHING wrong with being concerned about the potentially offensive nature of the Benny Lava article. My main point is that if that is, indeed, the motivation for requesting a deletion, that should be stated up front. -- Quartermaster (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Wikipedia should not be promoting such little articles. If every video on Youtube had an article, Wikipedia's article count would double.--LAAFan 22:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something doesn't smell right here

Sorry, but if Benny Lava is a "little article" then what about this blatant commercial you recently edited? I don't think many people are monitoring this (and again, I don't give a rat's butt about the Benny Lava article, frankly), but there's something fishy about this AfD. There are lots of minor Internet memes like this, not all deserving of articles. But, please, address the issue with some sort of rationale instead of vagaries and straw men arguments. -- Quartermaster (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment To Quartermaster, as I mentioned in the first post, the reason on why this article is not encyclopedic in nature is because:
1. It's a self-promotion of Buffalax, (WP:SOAP) and
2. This article is like an original invention. (WP:NOT#OR)
but if you insist that it is lampooning a movie/culture/language, I guess that I can add it to the third reason. Kotakkasut (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification Reauest I'm confused. Are you talking about the article itself, or the subject of the article? Do you mean we should now ferret out all articles about movies, books, and stories if they lampoon some culture or language? -- Quartermaster (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After watching the YouTube video I wanted to know more about the original music video so I searched for "Benny Lava" and it led me to Wikipedia and onto Prabhu Deva Sundaram. This is what Wikipedia is about, you would never see this article in Britannica sadly. Article is useful. Justin Morris (talk, contributions) 19:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now I'm beginning to wonder on why this article can't be found in Britannica if it's useful... Kotakkasut (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh?Justin Morris (talk, contributions) 23:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Observation The print edition of Britannica has only 65,000 articles, and wikipedia has app. 2.4 million articles so 97 percent of all wikipedia articles are not in Britannica. -- Quartermaster (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I forgot. Wikipedia is not Britannica. Silly me. Kotakkasut (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We can think about youtube videos in general, but I think we need to consider the particular details, too. If this is a minor detail related to a movie we have an article on, maybe it should have a sentence or two in there. So far, I don't see that this has gotten the kind of coverage in other sources that we'd need to have an article just on it. But, just because sources haven't been found yet doesn't mean they don't exist. Certainly we should avoid using internet forums as sources. Friday (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references suggest that the subject is at least somewhat notable, so I can't really recommend deletion. Perhaps merge/redirect to Mondegreen? --Alan Au (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, maybe it does not deserve its own article, but the content should not be removed from Wikipedia, a merge may be appropriate.Justin Morris (talk, contributions) 23:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK let's summarize this discussion, main points are italicized

I nominated Benny Lava for deletion because it lacks the criteria to qualify as a Wikipedia article, but it is useful and notable (the reasons are not clearly stated), and now I'm confused. Kotakkasut (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. To clarify, I'm using the external references (Toronto Sun, Wired) as an indicator of notability per Wikipedia:Notability (web). However, I personally consider it only borderline notable, which is why I recommend a merge/redirect. --Alan Au (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Keep Although it does sound like an advertisement for Buffalax, I still think it's useful. L337p4wn (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to me like we should edit out the prominence of "Buffalax" (thought I think he has to be mentioned sinces he's the author). -- Quartermaster (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Keep. The article may be imperfect or flawed - and in that case, it can and should be corrected and improved - but I believe it should be kept, for the following reasons:

- While there are other Internet memes and YouTube videos that are immensely popular, not many of them have so many rich implications and side references as this one. In spite of the video's comic nature, the article leads one to be interested and learn about memes, humor, mondegreens, Indian cinema, Tamil culture, language and dance, Prabhu Deva Sundaram, the ethic boundaries of humor, whether it is acceptable to mock a different culture and language (from what I read, some Indians were offended, but most laughed along - and twice as hard, because of the added component of understanding the actual lyrics)... I couldn't think of a better example of what makes a hypertext encyclopedia so useful and so rich in possibilities.
- Is the article self-promotion for Buffalax? Well, I was unable to find out who first created the article, but obviously, unless it was Buffalax himself, I don't think this applies. I also didn't have time to browse the previous versions, but I don't think the current one does much more than give due credit to the parody's creator. Maybe the mention to the "buffalaxed" neologism could be further sourced and verified (and perhaps removed, if that proved not to be possible), but calling the article "(self-)promotion" sounds a bit too strong to me.
- Likewise, I read the Wikipedia:No Original Research policy and don't think this article qualifies as such. The NOR rule "includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." Well, any Google search will yield dozens of published news stories on the video (maybe they should just be linked, too). Even the only opinionated part - the "web's hottest clip" one - does reference one such opinion. For the most part, the article contains factual and easily verifiable information that could never be classified as "speculation," and does not forward any "original" ideas that I could see.
  Also, it is based on a notorious fact that doesn't really need a "source" in the more usual sense of the word as applied in Wikipedia. I mean, it is not based on hearsay or something readers can't verify by themselves and have to believe what they read: one just has to go to YouTube and bear witness first-hand that the video is there and corresponds to what the article describes. So, I don't think that it qualifies as "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position," because I can't see any "position" being advanced there.
- Notability is often a debatable issue. It has been argued here that the article could possibly be merged to the one on mondegreens, and that would certainly be acceptable, but like I said above, this article has so many ramifications (albeit poorly linked as it is) that I believe it would be much better if it could reference and be referenced in its own right. It could also be merged into the article on Internet memes, or the one on YouTube, Indian/Tamil cinema, Prabhu Deva Sundaram, Pennin Manathai Tottu, humor, satire, etc., but while an internal link would do the trick in technical terms, if there are so many references I believe this is an indication of notability.
- For that matter, I personally believe that anything that causes such a commotion involving millions of people and introduces many of them to so many things is notable. I don't know if Wikipedia keeps a public record of page hits, but I wouldn't be surprised if the hits to this article were in the order of tens or hundreds of thousands. I looked for it first thing after I watched the video (and somehow I knew I would find it here), and I'm sure many more people did. If this is not notable, I don't know what could be. Even if it is an ephemerous fad, Wikipedia is full of fads that were significant at their time, from the hula hoop to the letkiss. Anyway, WP:Notability clearly states: "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort."
- Don't forget we are talking about an Internet meme. The very concept of memes implies that they are diffused through unconventional means that more often than not are very hard to trace, if at all. Does the usual rigor about "sources" and "coverage" apply to this particular situation? It could be argued whether memes can qualify as encyclopedic, but Benny Lava is not a common meme; it stands out for its reach, peculiar characteristics and ramifications. If it is considered to be encyclopedic, however, I believe its meme nature has to be taken into consideration.

If the article is kept, I even have two additions to suggest. The first is that it be mentioned that Benny Lava is actually not the first mondegreen on the Kalluri Vaanil video: a Brazilian Portuguese version[50] was posted to YouTube over a year before Buffalax's version (June 22, 2006 vs. Aug. 18, 2007), but failed to reach the same wide audience due to the more limited reach of the language. (I could add this information myself, but don't want to waste my efforts if the article is going to be deleted.) And the second suggestion is that some Tamil speaker add the untransliterated sample lyrics in the Tamil script; I can't read or understand Tamil myself and can't verify that, but this might interest Tamil-speaking users and purists.

--UrsoBR (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy Delete I think Kotakkasut has some sense here. The WP:NOT#OR clearly states that

Original inventions. If you or a friend invented the word frindle, a drinking game, or a new type of dance move, it is not notable enough to be Wikipedia article material until multiple, independent, and reliable secondary sources report on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.

so that applies for this article. Secondly if we mention about videos in YouTube that has a hundred thousand plus hits, yes I agree that this video is one of them but do remember that there are other clips in YouTube that has more hits than this one, and yet they don't have their own articles.

Thirdly, loony bun is Tamil culture?

So in my opinion, this article should be deleted. If that's not possible, it should be merged with other relevant article, one thing for sure, it doesn't deserve its own article. Ashiwin (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment now I'm super confused. I think it would be advisable that I shouldn't nominate any other articles for deletion in the future. But to answer Ashiwin's question, loony bun is definitely not Tamil culture lol! x) Like I said, we should ask the opinions of administrators about this article. I am also requesting that an admin should judge the verdict of the discussion. Ps. I hope that everyone is in their coolest mood when discussing about this article, peace =) Kotakkasut (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I wanted more information on the YT vid and was lead to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.54.23 (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MVP Baseball series#Players. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Dowd[edit]

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

Notability on this topic is shaky; even within the sports gaming community, it's only a minor curiosity. I'm not sure there's any info on the page worth merging into Barry Bonds or any of the respective game's pages, either. — BorgHunter (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't see why this couldn't be mentioned in MVP Baseball series. There are sources available [51]. Zagalejo^^^ 05:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It already is. I meant that I don't think there's any additional information in the Dowd article that should be included in the MVP Baseball article. Sorry, it's late and I'm not articulating things very clearly, it seems. — BorgHunter (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This could still be a redirect to that page. No need for deletion tools. Zagalejo^^^ 05:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed, but enough people worked on the page that I felt some discussion was appropriate before just chucking it and going the redirect route, hence the AfD. It does date back to 2005, after all. — BorgHunter (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: not notable, might even be original research. I have no clue what to make of this article, but I trust the compromise set out above. Randomran (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all unreferenced material per WP:V policy. The only external link is related to an attempt at original research. Marasmusine (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Articles have been transwikied by Izno. Fram (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Island (Sonic the Hedgehog)[edit]

Angel Island (Sonic the Hedgehog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This location, along with the following locations all nominated under this AFD, all fail WP:N and WP:FICT. No amount of repair would be able to show notability for any of the articles listed, and not one of them is exempt from this problem. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 04:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they share the same problem, are of the same type of article, and should be considered along with the article:

Earth (Sonic the Hedgehog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hidden Palace Zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Knothole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Minor locations in Sonic the Hedgehog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mobius (Sonic the Hedgehog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mobotropolis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nameless Zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shanazar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Special Stage (Sonic the Hedgehog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Special Zone (Sonic the Comic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Void (Sonic the Hedgehog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Delete all as all fail to meet the general notability guideline. None of them have any notability, because none of them are covered in reliable sources that are independent of Sonic the Hedgehog / Sega / etc. Randomran (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: These articles are minor and shouldn't be articles. If there's any info that can salvaged I encourage for it to be merged.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Per WP:NOT#PLOT. Also, on the blanket nomination, I trust Red Phoenix's judgement here, as he is acquainted with the subject, that all articles nominated here fit the profile. User:Krator (t c) 08:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki-ing may be a good move if these aren't covered elsewhere in the Wikia world. I'd support a merge if some sources can be found to sustain a merged article, but if not, then a deletion is in order. -- Sabre (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/transwiki. All of these articles fall outside the scope of WP and are surely better off at a different wiki dealing with specific video game interests. The Dork Knight 09:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki - There's some good in-universe stuff another gaming wiki might want, offload it there and then be done with it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For everyone asking for a transwiki, I have created a guide here for the major differences between the aforementioned Wikipedia articles and the articles at http://sonic.wikia.com , a Sonic wiki. Should someone be willing to be bold and move it, here are the differences between each corresponding article:
    • Angel Island - missing the last paragraph and all references from the Wikipedia article.
    • Earth - missing a substantial amount of content on Wikia.
    • Hidden Palace Zone - exacty the same as Wikipedia.
    • Knothole - also missing a substantial amount of content on Wikia.
    • Minor Locations - exactly the same as Wikipedia.
    • Mobius - written differently at the Archie comic section, but otherwise the same as Wikipedia.
    • Mobotropolis - actually, the Wikia is more expanded than the Wikipedia article.
    • Nameless Zone - missing a substantial amount of content on Wikia.
    • Shanazar - missing some content on Wikia.
    • Special Stage - missing a paragraph about Sonic Rush Adventure and the last two paragraphs on Wikipedia, but contains one more image on Wikia.
    • Special Zone (Sonic the Comic) - exactly the same as Wikipedia.
    • The Void - very similar, but the Wikipedia article has just a little more and is worded differently.

Hope this helps everyone. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 13:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/transwiki per above. Excessive detail and undue weight for a WP article. Any significant locations can be briefly mentioned in a single sentence (or within a sentence) in their respective game/cartoon articles. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all -- these are outside of the scope of what Wikipedia is aiming to do. Send it to a game guide wiki. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - All of them lack any real world context outside of the series. They are minor elements, so they should be treated as such. TTN (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki all except weak keep Special Stage (Sonic the Hedgehog) - this one may stand on its own pending additional sources. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all Seeing as they're all covered almost word for word, there's zero reason they need to be here as seperate articles. treelo talk 19:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not into video games, so I don't have an opinion on these articles. Just one question: could they be merged into a List of Places in Sonic the Hedgehog or something like that? Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. They are lacking any real world information. Wikipedia is not a games' magazine. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge them all as appropriate. I notice that combination articles on similar topics were also nominated--but that is a more reasonable way of doing things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG, 02:37, 29 May 2008
  • Merge and clean everything up. Maybe then we'll see less of Red Phoenix's sock-puppets and more constructive work going on around here. 169.237.39.141 (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I happen to take offense to that sockpuppet comment, since you're accusing me of something I wouldn't even consider. There's a difference between where constructive work can be done and what is just fancruft. This is fancruft. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 03:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Knothole to Wood#Knots, Delete everything else per WP:V, and subsequently, WP:N and WP:RS. I've salvaged the articles which basically had no content on sonic.wikia, with appropriate links to the page histories of the possibly soon-to-be-deleted articles here. My thanks to Red Phoenix for the summary of what sonic.wikia needed and what it didn't. --Izno (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be specific? Bridies (talk) 18:48, 30 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. Singularity 01:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dvira Ovadia[edit]

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

The article fails WP:BIO, fails to cite sources, and is generally just spam. Delete GreenJoe 03:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Concur does not meet WP:BIO rrcatto (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article was just recently created TODAY. I am !voting "keep" because I would like to give the article a chance for becoming notable per WP:BIO. --RyRy5 (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RyRy5 - article is in it's formative stages. JPG-GR (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think the references are sufficient. --Eastmain (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't create articles and hope they become notable. We create articles on notable subjects. AniMate 06:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She seems notable enough, and the article appears to be a work in progress. I would AGF for now, and see what happens with the article. DigitalC (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the addition of references, how recently the article was created, and the visible effort of the author to expand it. Remember that not everyone writes in full length, my friends. Some folks, myself included, write in sections at a time, which can lead to just this very situation. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 11:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Yes, she won a "reality" TV series, but it doesn't meet the "notable award" criteria in WP:BIO in my opinion. Beyond that, I don't think the subject is notable in her own right. PKT (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - references look sufficient. D.M.N. (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is now taking shape (WP:HEY?) and meets WP:BIO notability in my mind. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-sourced, verifiable, NOR and per WP:BEFORE should have been tagged for improvement before going to AfD 90 minutes after creation. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reliable and verifiable sources in current version of article establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep up the good work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 06:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well sourced. Good article Bstone (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm changing my above delete vote to keep because since being nominated for deletion, this article has been vastly improved and cites from reliable sources have been supplied which shows that this person meets WP:BIO. rrcatto (talk) 08:16, 30 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 deleted. Singularity 01:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman quickscript[edit]

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

While the topic sounds interesting, considering it's only just been created (mid 2008), and by the article's own admission is being used only by most of a 7th grade class, I don't think it meets notability guidelines. Maybe after some time when it's become more established. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedied it. This obvious vandalism by some kid and I see no need for an AfD, but while I'm here, delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism. Just somebody who doesn't understand our policies. — Werdna talk 06:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:NFT. I mean, really, this was something that was literally made up in school (7th grade) one day! -- ShinmaWa(talk) 07:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:NFT. treelo talk 19:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while not a speedy candidate, this certainly does not belong. Not only is WP not for things... but this is also non-notable and unverifiable. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 14:17, May 29, 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete per lack of reliable sources. Referencing and improving the unreferenced List of Jehovah's Witnesses conventions first might be the best way forward. Tikiwont (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guided By God's Spirit[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Guided By God's Spirit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not more notable than other JW conventions, and COPYVIO of printed convention programme Jeffro77 (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete They have this convention every year. This article is about this years convention. So really its same convention every year they just change the name. It could be merged into a general article about the convention if there was one. There is List of Jehovah's Witnesses conventions. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is highly notable. Over 12 million people attend the convention. Every religious convention has a different theme, on which the sermons are based around. (talk)04:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your right, but its a yearly convention. This article is about this years convention. The convention itself is notable, but there shouldn't be an article for every single year the convention takes place.-- Coasttocoast (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I would love to keep this article but I see just about no sources for it... gren グレン 10:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a comparison point, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deliverance at Hand, the AFD for the 2006 conventions that closed earlier this week. We certainly could have an article on the convention if there was substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources. At this time stamp, this article doesn't demonstrate the existence of such sources. Independent means not from Jehovah's witnesses denominational publications, the speakers, or the venues. Such sources may exist, but I'm not going to spend my time looking for them. GRBerry 20:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable event. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As stated before, this is a yearly convention, is a notable-event and different themes are discussed every year. I disagree with the comments of lack of or find "independent sources" for the articles. This article has provided the sources as tons of other articles on Wikipedia. The last comment user shows with in its last sentence that doesn't want to help at all in the maintenance of Wikipedia articles. I concord with the user that proposed a merger with article List of Jehovah's Witnesses conventions. RichiePR77 (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, this article has at the moment zero sources. Much less the independent sources that are required by our guidelines for which articles merit inclusion. Write an article that at least looks like it is worth saving and I might be inclined to help, but this text is so far from being an encyclopedia article, and so far from my personal topical interests that I have no interest in doing the work on it. With at least 7,000 poor quality Christian articles (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Christianity articles by quality statistics) out there there are far more articles that do clearly merit inclusion to work are on. I see no evidence that this merits inclusion. If you want it kept, you've been told what sort of evidence you should provide. GRBerry 17:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Friday (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lorelei Cordelia Mahoney[edit]

Lorelei Cordelia Mahoney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines for inclusion. Notability is only asserted in vague edit summaries; the links provided do not actually relate to the subject.  Frank  |  talk  03:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. At best, unnotable. At worst, a hoax.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have tried to engage the article creator, by asking them to provide correct sources, unortunately without success. None of the sources given (at various times) have actually verified the content. I took the time to check each one (the ones that I could check) but none of them mentioned this person. Not really sure if genuine or not, however there is nothing to suggest it is genuine and the article creator is not helping now. There is nothing on google yet a whole long list of films is listed (again none of which I can find) and a reality tv show they have apparently appeared in No Biz To Show Biz, but even that brings up nothing on google. I have asked for sources to confirm all this but rather than doing that, the article creator is now just pasting DELETE IT all over the article. So I have tried but given the lack of evidence and the article creators latest reaction then delete would have to be my vote.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 03:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And as I typed that out, GambinoManny has responded saying that "No Biz to Show Biz was an internet series of multiple webisodes that was Dec 07-Apr 08. I believe I sourced that to myreality.com" and that two books were from LuLu? All I can find for LuLu is lulu.com which seems to be a site for self-publishing books? They are quite adamant that she exists ad has been in numerous films. So not really sure now, presumably still non-notable?♦Tangerines♦·Talk 03:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Hoax, IMDB lists very few of the movies listed in the article, all of them predate 1990 even though the article says 2000-2008, and this person is not listed as a player in any of them (She would have been 3 or 4 years old when most were made.) L0b0t (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A hoax? Why waste the time creating a hoax? Also IMDB lists films already released, as you can see by the table most are post production. It's fine if you want to delete it, after all pro pit bull, pro war and pro bush, not surprising the article is not welcome. I have come up with direct links to support it but it seems like a waste of time to add them now, and the article also mentioned stage names and pen names however those were not checked. I thought she was somebody, and a few others did too but if Monica Lewinski's escapades make her worthy of a page and someone supporting troops, being on tv, saving dogs, etc does not I wouldn't want her on this site, at least not with my name attached to it. -GambinoManny (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

→Please note I deleted all references and sources in an effort to actually make it eligible for deletion. Now it can be said that it is unverifiable. please delete, I don't want my name attached to this badly butched article that people keep putting alerts and notices on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GambinoManny (talk • contribs) 06:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is, actually, one web site provided by the original contributor that's something other than completely useless. It's the personal web site of a woman named Lorelei, whose personal life bears some resemblance to the one described in the article presently under consideration, but also features significant variations (for instance, her husband has the same job and the same first name but not quite the same surname as the husband described in the article). Beyond that, it completely fails to mention anything about an acting career or make any other claim to wider significance, and in fact opens with a clear statement that Lorelei considers herself of no particular interest to the world at large. Having read it, I'm beginning to wonder if this whole thing is somebody's idea of playing a joke on the Lorelei with the web site. (Which is one reason why I haven't reproduced the URL here - you can find it in the page's edit history if you're interested, but if the article disappears it might be better for the signpost to the web site to disappear as well.) --Paul A (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Paul A. I was able to find a few things on this actress Lorelei, but most everything that could collaborated this article was about the UK Lorelei Mahoney. Perhaps an overzealous fan confused two people with the same name? Four of the film titles in question were released in Ireland. It is my belief that there may have been genuine intentions, but poor research obscured it's integrity. I would agree with deleting this article with an option to rewrite once he figures out who he is speaking about --Irish Lass of Galway (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Above Arguments, Prom3th3an (talk) 10:26, 28 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. Although those arguing to keep have been a bit uncertain in their decision, their voice appears to be the consensus, and the fact that the bio is backed up by sources supports that decision. One note about something which did not affect my decision here, but which I think needs to be stamped out of AFD since it poisons, rather than sheds light on, the discussion, is the curt referral to the WP:ATA essay on arguments one disagrees with. Anyone who feels tempted to write "Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS" and then follows through with "Please see WP:ONLYESSAY" (this goes the other way too when people cite "IDONTLIKEIT" and such) should take time to read the whole essay they are referring others to. Up there in the introduction it says "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged". Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Robinson (radio personality)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article does not give evidence of Notability. Local radio personality with no national coverage beyond brief mention of work with XM Satellite radio. The worthiness of page existence was questioned on the radio show itself, and evidence of this may be reflected in the article's discussion page. Verdatum (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep pending research into the subject's role on XM. If it was for any significant amount of time, I'm inclined to say that establishes notability outside of the local market. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 23:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From his blog, "So basically, I may or may not be on XM. If I am, I don't know what show they will be airing, what station or when it will air." Seems to suggest is was a trivial recording. The titles and airtimes on XMfan.com suggest that they are interspersed bits, and not like a standard half-hour comedy special sort of situation; though this is admittedly conjecture on my part. -Verdatum (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A

Weak Keep All references are regional at best (Washington and Baltimore) according to his blog, XM Comedy has recorded one of his performances for later air but it has not aired. I'd be very surprised if it didn't air but apparently that hasn't happened yet. Having a live performance featured on satellite radio seems notable enough to me. Article needs to be cleaned up though.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the cited XM link. He has been on XM as recently as this past Sunday —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.94.156.75 (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentThe above is from the same IP that created the article originally and has no other edits to Wikipedia outside of this article and the related radio station article. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 15:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
The article fails both the basic criteria for this notability guideline and the specific criteria for "Any Biographies", "Creative professionals" and "Entertainers". The fact that XM declares he is on the lineup is not sufficient condition to satisfy this; XM is not considered independant secondary source in this case, nor does the XM link in question constitute "signifigant coverage". XM is national, but it is not nessisarily a big deal. I had a friend who got a DJ gig on XM straight out of highschool, doesn't make her notable or worthy of a WP article. In other words, XM declares he's on the air, but we have no reason to believe that anyone else seems to care enough to write anything about it, so why should Wikipedia? Find two an articles reviewing the XM comedy bits from reliable national publications and I'll happily withdraw the nom. -Verdatum (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Joe Robinson. We have been having a laugh at this page on our show the last few days. I couldn't give a crap if you guys delete this page. Please do. I promise you not a single listener can be attributed to this page's existence. However, your arguements are as ridiculous as the creator of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.253.114 (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Why do Josh Spiegel and Mickey and Amelia have pages uncontested? Based on some of your hypercrital criteria on what is 'notable', 10 - 20% of Wikipedia should be purged. Regardless of the way the subject of this article feels about me or the article itself, I say this page is as worthy as many already here. This article was not a problem until some joker added false information to it in and RJHughes (who I firmly believe is the same joker) start interjecting himself.

Joe Robinson IS notable (whether you know who he is or not) and I followed your rules about citing independent sources to support that. Before you delete this article, you had better take a good hard look at the subjects of a lot of other articles.

I PROMISE you that more people know who Joe is than these people.

S. Mohinder Reinier Butöt Matthias Looß —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.93.200 (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Geniac (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.93.200 (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please see WP:ONLYESSAY. --Geniac (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close) RMHED (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diva (novel)[edit]

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

one sentence stub about inconsequential novel that does not assert notability nor cite references. one external link is a deadlink. portuguese wikipedia version is similarly uncited and of bad quality. SuperSuperBoi (talk) 02:51, 28 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 WP:BIO. --Selket Talk 04:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lombardy[edit]

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

NN & spam, author has been spamming other articles with links to this rogerd (talk) 02:50, 28 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 William Morva.  Sandstein  21:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Sutphin[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Though any death is tragic, we don't give someone an article just because they died. This article fails WP:BIO: the man is not notable in his own right, only by connection with William Morva, his killer. I suggest that the article be merged there. Terraxos (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with William Morva per nom. He is already mentioned in the Morva article along with Morva's other victim, although no separate WP article exists on the latter. -- Karenjc 16:19, 28 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 per WP:CSD#G7 and Redthoreau's "delete away" comment. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photos and interactive media on Che Guevara[edit]

Photos and interactive media on Che Guevara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete a good example of what an article here should not be: this is a list of some photos and videos of Che; while Che may be iconic, and we have our fair share of Che articles and even a category - a partial list of websites where we can gaze on his face or various iconic artwork depicting him is really not the basis for an encyclopedic article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These links were initially part of the external links for the Che Guevara article itself. They were moved to a seperate list during the FAR process to consolidate the article and save space. This is not a seperate article, as much as it is a compliment to the Che Guevara article itself. He is a notable subject, and there is a large amount of media related to his life/images etc. Your pov on the man and thus bias is irrelevant to the existence of the article, and your dislike of seeing his face is not sufficient enough rationale to delete articles about him.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 02:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also Carlos, you did not follow any of the steps of WP:BEFORE and hastily just added a "drive by" delete tag with no discussion whatsoever.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 02:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This linkfarm needs to go. Wikipedia is not Google (or in this case Google Images). L0b0t (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a LIST ... and several editors/admins stated that instead of having the external links on the Che Guevara article itself, that it would be better to use a seperate list. Similar links to these are at the bottoms of most wiki pages. The only difference here is that these do not clutter up the main article page. It is unreal that with all of the "cruft" and quite frankly un-notable "crap" on wikipedia i.e. "Underwater basket weaving by Nuns in 12th century Romania" that a list of links and images on a widely known historical figure would be considered cruft.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 03:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) --- Reasons for deletion --- WP:DEL#REASON ??? - Copyright infringement - Patent nonsense or gibberish - Vandalism that is not correctable - Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject) - Hoax articles (but not articles describing a notable hoax) - Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia - Content forks (unless a merge or redirect is appropriate) - Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources - Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed - Articles about newly-coined words or terms (i.e. neologisms) not supported by reliable sources - Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) - Articles which breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons and are not correctable - Inflammatory redirects - Redundant templates - Categories representing overcategorization - Images that are unused, obsolete, violate fair-use policy, or are unencyclopedic - Inappropriate user pages - Any other use of article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace. Which of these above reasons do you believe the current article meets? I see none. And without any, the deletion tag can justifiably be removed.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 03:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redthoreau, you forgot to include the first sentence from that section of WP:DEL#REASON which reads as follows: "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following...". I would posit, however, that the 6th reason listed, "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" covers this article quite nicely. The question, I think, is what purpose is served by an article that essentially duplicates a Google Images search? If there were too many EL's in the Che article, then they should be deleted, not forked out into a whole new page full of them. L0b0t (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. The fine print "and anything else I think of". Then why have the stipulations in the first place? I didn't even want a seperate article at first, but other editors stated that FA's weren't supposed to have external links listed and thus a separate page would be prudent. As such I increased the number of links assuming that since it was its own article, that there wouldn't be any harm of making a longer list. Now a few people swing in from nowhere and claim that the list is to big or unnecessary and should be removed. To me it is an example of "busy bodiness" and editors looking for stuff to "remove" rather than seeking out ways to improve Wikipedia through additions --- or address the mountains upon mountains of crap that is worthy of speedy deletion under the actual stipulations.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry you feel that way mate. WP:NOTLINK and WP:DEL#REASON seem like more than "fine print" to me but to each their own. You are correct about EL's and FA's, more info may be found here: WP:EL. In fact, Wikipedia:El#Links_to_be_considered even says the following: "Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links....". Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could there be a more perfect example of "Wikipedia is not a collections of external links" Wikipedia:NOTLINK -- Coasttocoast (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well this is futile. Delete Away. I'll move some of the links to various appropriate pages instead.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 04:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTLINK kind of sums this article and AFD up. Nothing more to it, really. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 05:05, 28 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. No consensus to delete, several sources discovered by Eastmain. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Public Policy Foundation[edit]

Georgia Public Policy Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


Questionable notability, specifically in that only one link points to a non-primary source, and that link is only to point out the source of information from the company's website. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:35, 28 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. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got Money[edit]

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

Non-notable song, just released today, no reliable sourcs about it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn The song has charted and there's a review cited. This is now a decent stub. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Couldn't we just merge/redirect this to The Carter III, and allow for expansion when there is more info available? I see no reason for outright deletion. Zagalejo^^^ 02:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's a "notable song", considering Lil Wayne is a pretty huge rapper (Songs at #1 and #31 on the Billboard top 100) and this is his next big single. Also, what does it being released today have to do with anything? It's better to have a page as early as possible, isn't it? Also, the iTunes store is a pretty reliable source for a release. They have to have permission to release songs from the record label and the artist, so it's pretty obvious that this is, indeed, his next single. IAugust (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's better to have an article when there are sources available -- you know, when it's 100% certain that the song's released AND it's charted AND someone's written in depth info on it. iTunes charts are not "official" compared to, say, Billboard, and should not be included in articles. Even if it "is" obvious that this is his next single, we still need reliable sources, several of them, to verify the info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There. Check the page now. Got the Billboard charts of it. Happy? IAugust (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentTo add to this, Got Money is obviously the third single. If you had Itunes you could check something called countdown till tha carter 3 (lil wayne's album) and it clearly states Got Money being the third single. In a couple of days it will also be added to Amazon and a cover art will be available. There is no need to delete this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waddup2k8 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it not? It's the biggest store for singles around the world; nowadays almost all singles are first released in digital format on iTunes than anywhere else. I fail to see how is it not notable. Do yo (knome)? yes...|or no · 05:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has already been coverart made. http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/9420/gotmoneyvb9.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneandonly16 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment "Got Money" has been added to the playlist on the BBC's 1Xtra radio station, they were the first major UK station to play "Lollipop" before it was announced as a single, plus I have seen cover art (admittedly I don't know if it's official). If the debate is whether or not this is going to be an official single then maybe the page should be forwarded to Tha Carter III. However there is no debate over whether it is relevant as Lil Wayne is widely considered to be the most influential rapper alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markieboy1989 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 28 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. Singularity 01:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DVD43[edit]

DVD43 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unreferenced two-line article about software, without any indication why it's significant or notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Provides no substaional information worth noting, very short, Prom3th3an (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, and reads somewhat like an advertisement. Jkasd 18:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Could be seen as straddling WP:SPAM and WP:NOT#HOWTO. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that wiki needs some sort of info on this program. but i think that the article should be expanded. i think that it could perhaps contain a copy of the dvd43 user guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.67.89 (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 Delete --JForget 22:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Xi Kappa[edit]

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

This local fraternity is a bit older than I feel comfortable with deleting without a full AfD. But it should be deleted; the brothers are treating Wikipedia like their Facebook page, view the article at your peril. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Wow, you weren't kidding Rooster, not really an article, just listcruft. Only GHit is the frat's own website. L0b0t (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In the absence of reliable sources establishing the notability of this fraternity that's apparently confined to a single university, there's no justification for retaining the article. If secondary sources are forthcoming before the close of this AfD, I'll reconsider my opinion. Deor (talk) 03:28, 28 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 per G3; Hoax. No objection to recreation if Reliable sources can be brought forward that indicate when Togo became a Canadian Province. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bowville[edit]

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

hoaxy article with improbable motto and map of Togo, which is apparently now part of Ontario. "Bowville+Ontario" -wikipedia returns zero ghits Grutness...wha? 02:02, 28 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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISouljaBoy[edit]

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

Largely unconfirmed album; no sources for the info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:00, 28 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, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Collection (Katy Garbi album)[edit]

The Ultimate Collection (Katy Garbi album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fan made album that fails notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grk1011 (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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. The article was only a couple hours old when nominated. I cleaned it up, added a source and chart positions — consensus is that any singer who has charted is very likely to be notable. He's charted on four major Billboard charts, so by God, he must be notable. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lil' Wil[edit]

Lil' Wil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources about artist, only had one song released, not much notability Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 01:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete still qualifies as creator removed the tag here. —BradV 01:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdrawn my vote per assertions of notability by TPH. —BradV 01:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Furthermore, since the article doesn't qualify for a speedy as there is a (somewhat vague) assertion of notability, a deletion discussion at AfD is premature. I change my vote to Speedy keep to give the article creator time to improve it. —BradV 01:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL - his "big album" hasn't even been released yet. Keep I had opposed per WP:CRYSTAL, as his big "claim-to-fame" mentioned in the article is an album not yet released. Perhaps the details Ten Pound Hammer made reference to should be added. Happyme22 (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has charted a single on at least two Billboard charts, as verified here. A charting single is, 99.99% of the time, an assertation of notability, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep TPH says it nicely. The notability is on the billboard. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:03, 28 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. The article has developed while this discussion has been taking place, and it now appears that it can develop into a reasonable article. I am therefore going for 'Keep' as at worst it would be a 'no consensus keep'.Bduke (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Average Daily Traffic[edit]

Average Daily Traffic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete basically a dictionary definition and little more, without refs or context. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Very little content about the subject. An unreferenced article that fails WP:N.--RyRy5 (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Too small, unreferenced, and lacks of notability macytalk 01:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge The general topic is hugely notable and this detail is a useful search term. The article should be kept until a suitable merge destination emerges. See Category:Road traffic management. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its basically a dictionery meaning..., Prom3th3an (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's for wiktionary, if anywhere. Maybe not even there, as the term means exactly what the individual words mean with no synthesis.
  • Comment - The dicdef arguments above seem based upon ignorance of the topic and offer no evidence to demonstrate that this stub cannot be expanded. To see the potential of this article, please consider a good list of potential sources such as Google Scholar. It seems clear from these many sources that one could write a considerable amount about the topic: how one defines and measures the average; its uses and consequences; some actual examples; historical growth; etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep Many articles are mere stubs, and need expanding. I would like to see it expanded, but if not expanded within the currency of this AFD, it should be trswikified to the dictionary. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is the academic and profession term used to measure the vehicle traffic on a road. With no disrespect to the participants in this AfD, a lot of the arguments are based on not understanding the term, not doing anything to attempt to verify the existences it has a professional term, and merely not understanding what a dictionary is. As pointed out by Colonel Warden there are thousands of hits on Google Scholar; most certainly these show notability of the term. I have expanded the article somewhat, and included two references to show notability; but I in no way an expert on the field, and have no ability to write more than a few sentences. On another matter, the article should be renamed, removing incorrect use of caps. Arsenikk (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Carl Monson. As the merge has already happened and there are no outright objections to a redirect then lets stay within GFDL. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Shelton[edit]

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

Recently deceased obscure former starlet who guest appeared in a few TV shows in the early 1960s. Doesn't clear WP:BIO, and there don't appear to be any reliable sources about the subject; none appear in the article save for her IMDB entry, in any event. Wikipedia is not a memorial.  RGTraynor  12:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intention was not to memorialize Laura Shelton, but to meet interest in her since her death last week and recent postings of her television work on YouTube. I agree with you that there still needs to be more research, but she had a larger impact on the early NoHo movement with her husband Carl Monson (known more now for his sexploitation films of the 1970s) and the Curtain Call Theatre than I have been able to articulate. Their Theatre was one of the first in what is now the Hollywood Theatre District. My hope is that through Wikipedia some of the more interesting aspects of that era and movement of west coast theatre will be revealed as people contribute to the article. This is an actress who was a large part of the Pasadena Playhouse phenomenon along side Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman and part of the end of the studio system. She was one of the last "Hollywood Debutantes" selected by the industry and presented at the Hollywood Debutant Ball by Joan Crawford and Bob Hope. Don’t let my novice approach kill an article that could yield some wonderful information. Utepsong (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge a summary to Carl Monson (which needs work). Her husband seems somewhat more notable based on the IMDB entry.—RJH (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yep, I glanced at the Monson article, but he looked to be just notable enough, so I didn't file on that one.  RGTraynor  16:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How do you do all of that?Utepsong (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: How do we gauge notability? Myself, I start with a Google search, and follow up on links. If I find reliable sources per WP:RS, that's all she wrote. Beyond that, there are various policies and guidelines that explain the various standards involved. Wikipedia core policies are listed under WP:FIVE, and a few of the key policies we use here are WP:V (all articles must be sourced through reliable, independent, indepth sources), WP:BIO (the criteria used as gauges of notability) and WP:RS (explanations of what constitutes reliable sources and how they're applied). I highly recommend giving those links a look see. Good luck.  RGTraynor  19:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a handful of guest roles on notable TV shows does not translate into notability, and working with notable persons doesn't either. If there are enough sources perhaps an article on the Curtain Call Theater would be warranted, but read WP:ORG first. --Dhartung | Talk 19:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How do you merge? Maybe this should be a subarticle to Carl Monson. Utepsong (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: It's relatively easy. First off, you take all the relevant info and put it in a subsection in the Monson article; something starting off like "Monson's wife was Laura Shelton, an actress who appeared in guest appearances in several TV shows of the early 1960s. She was a student at the Pasadena Playhouse school of theater, where she ..." Etc. Then you replace Shelton's article with #REDIRECT [[Carl Monson]] and use a note in the edit summary along the lines of "Redirecting to Carl Monson article."  RGTraynor  13:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: RGTraynor thanks for being so helpful. Can you take a look at Carl Monson and see if that looks okay? I also don't know how to include images with an article. Thanks again, Utepsong (talk) 13:44, 22 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, jonny-mt 01:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is a procedural relisting due to an incorrect non-admin close. Please add your comments below. --jonny-mt 01:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would prefer deletion without redirection as I don't see any notability whatsoever, but redirects are cheap, so I have no strong objections to one. It looks like a merge has taken place, so a redirect would be required to preserve authorship history under the GFDL. --Dhartung | Talk 06:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 28 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. — Scientizzle 16:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Altin[edit]

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

Delete unsourced one-liner about an Albanian given name, without context or why this is notable. WP is not a baby naming guide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:00, 28 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. Singularity 01:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women in World War I[edit]

Women in World War I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is written like an essay, has no context, no references, nothing linking to it. The content is in this way not suitable for an article, it is partly and could fully be covered in World_War_I#Economics_and_manpower_issues. Shoombooly (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge content into World War I. This is notable information, but it is indeed written like an essay and does not merit its own article. Happyme22 (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete this is an important topic, unfortunately, the authors of this article and the Women in the First World War article have done a poor job of documenting something which deserves a well written article. --rogerd (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My only reservation about keeping it is that someone is going to have to do the work of writing a good article about this topic. --rogerd (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:IMPERFECT our method is to improve faltering starts rather than to delete them. This topic is hugely notable and there are entire books upon just a fraction of it. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that the article is in very poor shape, but the topic is highly notable and it's better to have an article people can work on than nothing at all. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Merge, and Overhaul At a minimum we will need to merge Women in the First World War and Women in World War I into a single article, since two article on the smae topic and sharing the same name aren't permitted on Wikipedia. As to keeping the page: yes we should per the previous keeps, and it shouldn't be too hard to find sources for the information presented here in. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nah, the other one is just a list. Rename it accordingly. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with WP:IMPERFECT. Women did play a big role in World War I, and it could be expanded to a great article. I think this is a great idea for the encyclopedia. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 10:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article does need working on, and perhaps a merge with Women in the First World War is required, but the subject is far too important to remove from Wikipedia. Markb (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Okay, who wants to take the lead and start the rewrite? :) Ecoleetage (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, still, there now are 2 articles with basically the same name and totally different content, it's confusing at least. Consensus is going to be keep it seems, I just hope someone picks up the glove and merges and rewrites the articles. Also, it could be covered in the general WW1 article (better than is done right now anyway).Shoombooly (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is part of a series about women in warfare from the earliest times. As such, merging it to a general article would defeat the purpose. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it is part of a series, why is the article orphaned? Shoombooly (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no merge necessary, and source as needed. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "During World War I, women had a big role to play. Coal was necessary in Britain, in homes, factories and offices and public buildings and women helped to mine this coal." Who wrote this, an 11 year old? The consensus seems to be "It needs a lot of work and I sure hope someone will do the job." A worthwhile topic, maybe so, but there's nothing to praise in this article. Mandsford (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps it was written by an 11 year old, what's wrong with that? Do you believe there should be an lower age limit for Wikipedia Editors? Markb (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that's a topic for another debate. Especially since we don't know the age of the writer. The point is whether or not it's worth keeping a very poorly manufactured article about an important topic. Personally I think it's better to not have an article at all, than having one that gives bad information. After all, this is an encyclopedia, not a random collection of articles of poor quality. If no article exists on the topic, chances are someone will eventually write one, again. Why is keeping the bad article better than having no article at all on the topic? Is the aim of wikipedia to have as many articles as possible? Or to have as many good articles as possible? Quantity over quality? Hmmm... Shoombooly (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Colonel Warden and Obento Musubi that WP:IMPERFECT is an important policy that deserves respect, which is made easier in this case because the subject is so important and truly worthy of being developed. I don't see it as relevant here to try to foresee the future and guess how quickly this might happen. Also, I think it would be a good idea to merge Women in the First World War into this article. True, it's "just a list", but it has data and that should be preserved if possible. --AnnaFrance (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasons cited by the nom are reasons to add cleanup tags and do not fall under AFD nomination rules. Jtrainor (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging has been suggested, and has a fair amount of support. Knowing nothing about the subject regarding controversies I will not perform any merge myself, but that does not rule out other people doing so. If someone believes the hospital is notable on its own, they might consider expanding it with information beyond the organ harvesting controversy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sujiatun Hospital[edit]

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

A kind of content fork. The only notable feature about Sujiatun Hospital is the accusation that it had a basement used for harvesting the organs of Falun Gong practitioners. There is a page about this topic already, which has all the same information. There's nothing in this article about the hospital except for information already in the main organ harvesting article. Asdfg12345 00:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whether this adds new information to the discussion. The original reason for deleting it was that it has no notability outside the organ harvesting controversy. And there is a page dedicated to that issue already. If there were other notable features of the hospital, then I think it would be reasonable to keep this. But at the moment it's just repeating identical content as on the main page.--Asdfg12345 01:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 01:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vulgaris[edit]

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

This page is proposed for deletion for the same reasons that pertain to pages Miserabilis and Canus. Treats biological species by species epithet only, rather than binomial -- Wloveral (talk) 00:27, 28 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. Singularity 01:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Supermarkets[edit]

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

I don't think this retailers' cooperative is notable. The only coverage I can find that isn't in directories and such is in the following: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], and [57]. None of those are "significant" in their coverage, to my mind; however, I thought someone might disagree, so I brought it here instead of ProDing it. AnturiaethwrTalk 00:21, 28 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 and redirect per consensus on article's failing WP:NN. Also previously merged and redirected but recreated from history. --Selket Talk 04:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Poet and the Pendulum[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Poet and the Pendulum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mostly trivial and unsourced, not a single. Chock full of original research of the song meaning. Rehevkor (talk) 01:07, 28 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.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Wes Hayward. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Wikipedian06 provided the sources to demonstrate notability; while a great deal of them were trivial mentions, et al which did not help it meet requirements, there are enough real bits in there to fufill WP:WEB. May I note that all the other Alexa arguments for keeping are complete and utter bunk and were entirely disregarded; further, arguments about “what is more reliable” do not help assert notability one way or another and should not come up at AfD. This is not a “who is better” contest between TTN and Metacritic or GameRankings. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TopTenReviews[edit]

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

Website does not seem notable, majority of sources are primary and no notable, creator JakeThomson created and liked this article and web page only. Appears to fail WP:WEB and may be a vanity article. Rehevkor (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • TopTenReviews is more notable than Game Rankings and sources of TopTenReviews article are less primary than those of Game Rankings article.TopTenReviews article is less vanity than Game Rankings article, so TopTenReviews article should not be deleted.--Handsome elite (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of the articles 12 references (for which the reflist keeps getting deleted for some reason), most are repeated refs linking directly to the website, another is a press release released by the website (Repeated 4 times), another is Alexa which is being used in a vain attempt to assert notability in numbers alone. Other articles and such comparisons are pretty much irrelevant when considering AfD. Rehevkor (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TTR has been cited by well-known publications including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, and more. [58] This meets WP:WEB. JakeThomson (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. user JakeThomson's only edits have been on the subject of TopTenReviews. Rehevkor (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely Delete - I had to go to page 7 on Google to find a non-subdomain result for "toptenreviews". Saying it has more hits on Google is not a valid argument as lots of links that turn up are "The top ten reviews for Firefox" or whatever. Fin©™ 10:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There's an interesting discussion on TopTenReviews notability here. Fin©™ 11:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what this is for. JakeThomson (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:WEB, 1 2 3; meets all requirements. That said, I would like to see the article expanded to include more external sources. Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_28&oldid=1142646277"