Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< April 15 April 17 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, and expand, rewrite, add sources. All the usual for a notable school with a substandard article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Valhalla High School, Valhalla

Apart from reading like a review, there's an existing Valhalla High School article. Andrew walker (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • My apologies, that's a different school. It still reads like a school prospectus, however. Andrew walker (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Would that be a reason to rewrite the article, not delete it?24.160.240.212 (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Article has now been rewritten. Is there a deletion reason?--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:11, 17 April 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. - Philippe 23:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Julian Murphy

Julian Murphy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Vanity page for an "erotic artist". No secondary sources I can find other than blogs and such, and the Prod was removed by an IP who didn't provide any. Fails WP:BIO for creative professionals. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. I can't find any sources either, though we may want to be on the lookout for copyvios--the second sentence is lifted from here. (I don't know if that's enough for a speedy as copyvio, but I thought I should mention it.) Anturiaethwr (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. C'mon, do we really need an AfD for this? +Hexagon1 (t) 03:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Should qualify for speedy deletion due to copyvio.--Jackmantas (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Firstly I don't think that 14 words, including some which are attributed, amount to a copyright violation, but I've chaged the wording slightly anyway. I've added some references to the article, including one from CNN which says that the presence of his work gives respectability to a gallery, and one that shows that his work has been part of a four-man exhibition alongside Andy Warhol's, Keith Haring's and David Hockney's. I know notability is not inherited, but I can't imagine anyone who is not regarded as notable by his peers would be invited to make up the numbers in that sort of illustrious company. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
As the reference makes perfectly clear, this was a pre-auction display for charity, including works (no doubt prints, to judge by the quoted prices) by the other artists mentioned, and doubtless dozens of others. Warhol & Haring had both been dead for over a decade at the time. It doesn't really show much as regards notability. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 17 April 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. - Philippe 23:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Lawn Bowls Show

The Lawn Bowls Show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable community television program. The sport is notable, the community television station is notable, but a program on the sport on community TV is not. Mattinbgn\talk 23:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable.  Atyndall93 | talk  01:38, 17 April 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. Veinor (talk to me) 15:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paging grace

Paging grace (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does this unsigned band meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines, I'm doubtful, no significant coverage in reliable third party sources, no national or international tours, just local ones. Quite a lot of claims to local notability though largely unsourced. Polly (Parrot) 23:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you expand upon that please as I can't see how that song is notable, what am I missing? Polly (Parrot) 00:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
No probs, the song "Leave" was used in The Hills for the show's 4th Season, there for they pass WP:MUSIC#C10 - "performance in a television show". I just googled Paging / Grace / Hills, and got a ton of verifyable / reliable references. Cheers  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 12:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying, is that the only claim to notability? if so it's a bit weak. As far as I can tell the song wasn't used as a theme for the show it just featured on it. Polly (Parrot) 13:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
But it's enought: WP:MUSIC - "is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria".  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 14:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:MUSIC#C10 also says (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.) Hence my above question.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no deletion !votes. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t•c 12:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Badger Badger Badger

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Badger Badger Badger Articles for deletion/Badger Badger Badger (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Badger Badger Badger Parodies
Badger Badger Badger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another previous deletion discussions can be found at Talk:Badger_Badger_Badger#AfD_discussion - from 2004

The discussions were both largely characterised by people saying "this is famous" or "this is well known" or "I think it's funny". I'm surprised it needs saying, but this is not the requirement for a subject to be notable and worth its own article.

Over the last two years, the article has descended into a list of all the different spoofs that people have made of it and posted on YouTube or on their blogs or the other versions of the cartoon made by Pickering, none of which have become as well known as the original. Cut out all the fancruft and you're left with a stub that should be merged with another article. The only reliable source was a PC World mention as being one of the top five Internet fads[1], and that doesn't look non-trivial to me.

I like this animation and I know plenty of people who have heard of it but despite my making requests on talk pages of the article and Weebl's cartoons, no one has come up with any reliable sources and has just reverted mine and User:Gwernol's action to redirect it to Weebl's cartoons.

I believe this article should be merged with Weebl's cartoons#Badgers and I have already put some suitable text in that article. I will happily drop the deletion nomination if someone can find two non-trivial, reliable sources on the topic so that it meets WP:WEB. I don't think there's any chance of Badgers having won "a well-known and independent award" or "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators" so let's focus on notability.

I'm sorry to bring such a long request here, but I've got the impression that regular editors of the article are going to be over-defensive (sorry if that's not AGF) so I thought it best to open it up to a wider audience. GDallimore (Talk) 22:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Notability is pretty clear on this one, as was mentioned in the previous AfDs. The only thing that needs citations are the other facts in the article, and theese look pretty well cited to me. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Internet fad. Looks like the pcworld.com link(watch Shortlist - Internet fads video) which is a reliable secondary sources that is independent of the subject, fits the notability requirement. SunCreator (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Between the PC World Article, which has already been posted, and an assortment of lesser mentions (Such as the one in; Houston Chronicle Computing Column. Dwight Silverman, Houston Chronicle, 14 February 2004), and the numerous articles about its use at high school / collegiate sporting events, notability is pretty well established at this point. Celarnor Talk to me 00:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep with conditions If more reliable sources can be found, keep. If cannot be found, remove unreferancable material and Merge with creator's article.  Atyndall93 | talk  01:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Disgustingly notable, but notable nonetheless. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I think this is a bit low on the reliable sources meter, but I added a couple that should make a stronger case. The Guardian thinks that Dancing Badgers helped Weebl's Stuff win its Yahoo awards, so that's something (also an argument for merging, I suppose). Desperately needs the cruft cleaned up. --Dhartung | Talk 06:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep has been covered by outside sources. At worst merge to the Internet phenomena article. JuJube (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Reluctanct Keep. I happen to think the sucess of badger badger badger is undeserved, but it is definately one of the better known internet memes. This does by its nature mean that searches for online references of the sort normally required are swamped by its popularity, making find the desired results like finding a needle in a haystack. --BrucePodger (Lets have a beer) 08:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you Dhartung - glad someone managed to find something. The very popularity of the animation seemed to be working against it because finding something reliable amongst all the cruft seemed impossible. I'd tried searches of some UK national newspapers and found nothing, but hadn't got around to the Guardian yet. I withdraw the nomination and will tidy up the article instead. GDallimore (Talk) 09:20, 17 April 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:CSD#A7, non-notable group of partiers. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Party Thursday

Party Thursday (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A bunch of friends who like to party on Thursdays. Not notable outside their social circle. FreplySpang 22:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Non-notable and non-verifiable. Rnb (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete As a non-notable group that doesn't assert notability. Tagged as such. Bfigura (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as non-notable event by non-notable group (note: "not WP:NOTABLE", which is not the casual meaning of "notable", seems to be confusing the author). Author Kablamo77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has a whole set of pages related to this residents' group, including the already-speedied Party thursday page. DMacks (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nn, nv, nr (all above).  Atyndall93 | talk  01:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Celarnor Talk to me 02:51, 17 April 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. - Philippe 23:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heresis I: The Shaking Opera

Heresis I: The Shaking Opera (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a future film with a relese date of '09. A group of film students first commercial venture, albeit with a tiny budget. No references to show significant coverage in reliable sources, it probably isn't notable now but who knows it might go on to be after its release, unlikely though I'd say. Polly (Parrot) 22:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • There should be a lot more coverage to add within the coming weeks, as it gears up during shooting. It's not a student film, it is a professional feature film, and I would hope it can be treated as such? Professional actors and an award winning director, I reckon they're gonna get press coverage, and especially recognition in Ireland, a country not particularly renowned for its fantasy films. Leon Kira —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon Kira (talk • contribs) 22:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC) — Leon Kira (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Then please, rewrite when there is coverage. Wikipedia is used for writing about things that are already notable; it's not a means of helping make things notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • We're not using this to create recognition for the film, we are currently using other mediums for this reason. This is the first film of this type being made in Ireland that is a proper professional production. We already have made contact with the press but nothing is being released as of yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LTFitzgerald (talk • contribs) 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC) — LTFitzgerald (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete. Per WP:MOVIE, "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines." (Also, no sources.) Anturiaethwr (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is notable in the fact that Ireland has never made a film like this before, and also it is one of the few Irish films of any genre currently in production in that country. That will warrant large media attention in Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon Kira (talk • contribs) 00:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC) — Leon Kira (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • The media attention will create reliable sources, from which an article on this movie can be written. However, for WP:Verifiability purposes, the media attention needs to happen before it can be used to support an article's content and or notability. -- saberwyn 01:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • DeleteThe inclusion of this article on Wikipedia appears to be an attempt to create notability. Also, no sources.Jackmantas (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not for notability purposes. There are much more productive, prominent and effective ways of creating notability than having a wikipedia page.

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The film may become notable in the future, if filming is completed and if the budget doesn't run out and if the director doesn't get eaten by a shark on Grafton Street, and if its release isn't screwed up, and if it then generates enough coverage to establish notability. However, right now it is non-notable, failing WP:N (because it's completely unreferenced) and failing WP:MOVIE per Anturiaethwr. No prejudice to recreation in the future if notability has been established. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Many movies fail during filming, and only the most spectacular failures (of which this doesn't look to have the potential to be) are notable. Many movies, especially microbudget movies, failed to be achieve any sort of notability. This just isn't notable today, because there's no guarantee it will get anywhere.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:32, 18 April 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 keep. John254 20:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Susan Mayer

Susan Mayer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails to meet WP:Notability guidelines Ultra! 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS in mind, we have articles on fictional characters from dozens of television shows. The characters on Friends, Frasier, Seinfeld and The Simpsons come to mind. How does this article differ in notability from other fictional television characters? - auburnpilot talk 22:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - The nominator is right in saying that this article does not currently establish notability, and needs vast improvement to meet Wikipedia standards, and yet... a certain level of common sense should also be applied here. Susan is a major character in a highly notable television series, her article might be cruft right now but I don't think it would be very difficult to establish enough notability to justify it. Her page needs a bit of effort but I think it deserves to exist. Afraid I can't make a stronger argument than that, however, since there isn't anything besides plot on the page and I'm not willing to search for sources myself because I hate the character. :P A good project for the DH task force perhaps.  Paul  730 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Nominating this article for deletion makes no sense at all. Why do you propose this one for deletion, but not Lynette Scavo, Bree Hodge and so on? Be consistent in your deletion nominations. Also it would be nice to explain your nominations with more than a few words. You also have to consider that characters in other TV shows such as The OC still have their own articles, such as Ryan Atwood, Marissa Cooper, etc... even if The OC is finished. Desperate Housewives characters are much more notable that The OC characters, because DH still is producing new seasons and episodes (7 seasons are expected) so they deserve articles. These characters re currently notable enough to have articles. Maybe not in 10 years but right now their articles should not be deleted. Canjth (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Canjth, I agree with half of what you said, but not all of that about notability. I don't believe for one second that the main Desperate Housewives characters are more notable than the main The O.C. characters. If anything, I'd say that they are equally notable. It doesn't matter how many years pass by after this show ends, these characters will still be notable. Notability doesn't just fade away with time (what is relevant often does). The main characters from Beverly Hills, 90210 are still notable and their show hasn't been on for years. But, anyway, yeah, I vote Keep (as seen below). Flyer22 (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep with conditions If the article can cite some third-party sources, improve its content to the point at which it would be useful to a random person who wanted to know about it and be written in a encyclopedic prose (not Narrative). Otherwise Delete.  Atyndall93 | talk  02:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Character is notable. Rray (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The article doesn't currently meet WP:FICTION, which says that real world notability should be shown. However, this is a major character in a much-talked about series, and that real world notability should be easy to find. (The keep is weak only because it's conditional on that notability being shown.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Paul said it all. Clearly this article could be much more than just plot summary. Work to improve it, there's no need to delete it.Gungadin 16:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Sources are available. [2] -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. As I stated on my talk page when notified about this deletion "debate"...I wish that more Wikipedian editors would check for the notability of articles before nominating those articles for deletion simply based on what is or what isn't in those articles (my other comment is above). Flyer22 (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - I don't like to disagree with you, Flyer, but the burden of evidence does lie with the editors who add material or want material to be kept, not the editors who nominate material for deletion. I have to question the agenda behind this AfD however; Ultra, do you seriously believe this character isn't notable, or are you just trying to motivate people to establish that notability in the article?  Paul  730 20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Paul, the responsibility of at least checking the article's notability does somewhat lie with the nominator when it comes to deletion debates. I've elaborated further below, right after Bignole's comment. Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, the nominator should keep WP:OSTRICH in mind. While it's true that the burden lays with the article, a little good faith effort on the part of the nominator is nice. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Maybe, but why should editors perpetuate the cycle by basically saying, "Keep - because the nominator doesn't even attempt to look for sources on the subjects notability". That's like saying, "Well, if you're going to take your toy back I want my toy back too!". It's not helping the situation any. Whether the nominator's actions are a little overzealous is irrelevant to the fact that he does have a point about the article's notability. What should have been done is that those who believe the article warrants individuation, but clearly lacks any independant sourcse to support that, should have requested that the nominator give them some time to find sources. Instead of simply voting "Keep", and then complaining about how nominators don't look for sources for the article, just say "Give me a few days to see if I can find sources". Obviously it will take some time to clean up the page entirely, but there is a difference between an article lacking the assertion of notability, and one that simply needs to be cleaned up. Currently, this articles falls into both categories, but one of those is faster to accomplish than the other. Let's not complain that other people aren't helping, because that doesn't help any more than...well, not helping.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes, Paul and Bignole, I know that the burden of evidence is mainly on the creator of the article's shoulders, but the Wikipedia deletion nomination process states that the nominator should check for notability of the article first (at least the last time I looked at it it did). Nominating for deletion should be a last resort. It saves us from going through unneeded deletion debates...such as this. I'm tired of seeing notable articles deleted from Wikipedia simply because the nominator for the deletion didn't do a simple Google check (although Google is not always a sure win, but you get my point). This is truly a problem on Wikipedia. It's wreckless. And AfD shouldn't be used to nominate editors to improve articles. I'm not saying that I assumed bad faith on the part of this editor, but AfD surely doesn't seem to have been used as a last resort in this instance. If it's childish of me to point out that more editors on Wikipeia need to check for the article's notability before nominating that article for deletion, then I suppose I'll keep being childish. Because I find it childish and downright silly of an editor not to check for the notability of an article he or she put effort into nominating for deletion in the first place. Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
                • I'm sorry, but how childish is it to sit here and complain about the nomination and how they need to check notability, instead of simply doing it yourself and saying "see, it does"? Obviously pretty hard since you didn't bother to do it. Here, allow me to help. Google News for basic terms "Susan Mayer" and "Desperate Housewives". Here, now that I've helped it along, why don't you (or someone who actually likes the show enough to help the article out) go through all 615 sources and find out if she has more than just a blip mention, or if they are actually talking about the character in an encyclopedic way. Let's quit wasting the AfD space bickering about how no one wants to do notability checking themselves. That is what is childish (and that statement is directed at everyone on this page complaining about other people's lack of actions, instead of focusing on the article itself).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
                  • Allow me to apologize for my rude tone in my message, as it isn't helping the situation either. I'm just as annoyed as you about all of this. It seems like everyone on Wikipedia would rather start complaining about everything than actually doing something about it (this applies to both ends of the spectrum). We'd all rather tell other people to either fix it or leave it alone, instead of doing any work ourselves. Anyway, it doesn't make up for my attitude in my post, so I apologize for that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep DH iss one of the most notable show in the entire world and Susan is one of the 5 leads. The main problem is the fact that it is not well written but it is easy to fix. The article needs to stay, I don't get why we should delete it, especially if it is just this one. The character was even the center of a big controversy this season (philippino doctor's anyone?) a unnotabe character can't create controversy.
  • Weak keep Generally, I would vote Keep, especially if the article could be improved somewhat. It's a lead character from a very well-known TV show, which asserts the subject's notability. I have to vote weak for this one, however, for the lack of third-party sources. Also, partly for its current state of style the article is written in, although that's not substantial reason to vote for its deletion. --JamieS93 23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article can definitely be improved somewhat and it doesn't deserve deletion as of yet. Sfufan2005 (talk) 23:41, 17 April 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 --JForget 01:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese voice option video games

Japanese voice option video games (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable original research. Note that the deletion nomination is specifically because of non-notability. The sources provided have nothing to support the notability of the topic of the article, rather they are there to try to bolster the synthesis and OR present in the article. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as original research essay. I don't see how this could be improved or rewritten to become an encyclopedia entry. --DAJF (talk) 04:34, 17 April 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 keep. - Philippe 23:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Illdisposed

Illdisposed (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not assert notability. It fails criterion A7 and therefore may qualify for a speedy deltion (not sure). The articls is also a total mess with only a discoraphy (that has no links to actual albums) and the line-up. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Google search turns up one link, not notable. Plus there is a ton of redlinks, showing that none of their work is notable either.  Atyndall93 | talk  02:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is a professional review at allmusic.com. (I've added a link in the article). They were also signed to Roadrunner Records, a subsidiary of Warner. Comment: the article being a "total mess" and having red links is certainly not a deletion reason. Also, I'm getting many thousands of ghits. --Fabrictramp (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Article now has links to several articles about Illdisposed from significant publications. --Peter Andersen (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note - What? No it doesn't. Metal-archives, myspace and their own official site are hardly "significant". You're either lying, joking are don't know what you're saying. The article now has one reference of a review. Hardly and improvement. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
At time the article had links to both allmusic.com and jp.dk. Both are reliable publications and that should be enough to establish notability. Maybe you are in fact the one who does not know what he is saying! --Peter Andersen (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Can we keep the discussion a bit more civil? Thanks!--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Eduardo Rivadavia of All Music Guide describes them as "one of Denmark's most respected and longest lasting death metal bands" here. That alone seems pretty notable to me. They have gotten plenty of coverage elsewhere, for instance here, here, here here and here. Easily qualifies per criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC: multiple non-trivial mention in independent publications. They have also released two albums on Roadrunner Records which also means they qualify through criteria 5: two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). If an article does not assert notability, it should be tagged with {{notability}} instead of being nominated for deletion. The two albums on Roadrunner seems to be a sufficient assertion of notability to me though. --Bardin (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep True, the article could definitely use improvement, so why not assist in that effort instead of nominating for deletion? Notability does not appear to be an issue at all. Jackmantas (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note - Well first to Jackmantas, I didn't know it was so notable then, it only had one intro sentence and sources that were not reliable. Since then more has been added, though. To Bardin: Those sites you cited don't seem reliable (some of them are just reviews, which don't mean anything) but at the same time I'm hesitant to disagree with you as you have garnered my respect and seem like a great editor and seem like you usually know what you're saying. Well at any rate it doesn't seem like this article will be deleted, but it does need serious improvement. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing inherently wrong with reviews as long as it's not anonymous user submitted stuff like what we find on the metal archives. Allmusic.com, Lordsofmetal.nl, etc. are websites that feature professional reviews so they are fine. I've taken a look at the version of the article when you nominated it for deletion and you're right that it only had one intro sentence and unreliable sources. Still, when there's a photo of the band performing at a big festival like the Summer Breeze Open Air, an infobox stating that they've been around since 1991 and a discography that includes eight studio albums, two compilations and one dvd, I would personally lean towards the assumption that the band is notable for inclusion on wikipedia. A more appropriate action in my view would be to just tag the article with some other templates such as {{notability}} and {{expand}}. You can still withdraw this nomination if you now agree that the band is notable enough. Thanks for the vote of confidence, btw. --Bardin (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I did, after all, give you the first barnstars I've ever given out. Errr, I'm loath to admit it, but I don't know how to withdraw my nomination. But I now would if I knew how. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:38, 21 April 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 redirected to extant article on same topic. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 23:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of sex

Origin of sex (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject of this article is already covered under a different title; namely Evolution of sex. AC+79 3888 (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Only if it's already a redirect. But this problem could have been solved with a Talk page discussion, most likely. --Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect per the users before me. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Pile on support for a Speedy Redirect...need I say anything else? Dustispeak! 22:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course redirect! Considerig the article's subject already exists... Soxred93 | talk bot 22:45, 16 April 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 keep. John254 20:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zakhmi Aurat

Zakhmi Aurat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, almost no content, no indication of notability. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Google search reveals many results about the film, sources need to be added.  Atyndall93 | talk  02:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. In less time than it took to add all those tags to the article (most of which were redundant to each other) and start this AfD the nominator could have done a Google News search and added a reference into the article to the first of the hits. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - I don't blame the nominator for nominating this. It is the creating editor's job to establish verifiable notability. While we've verified the film exists, I am not so sure of its notability. But I am in a generous mood. - House of Scandal (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just in case anyone doesn't find the Google News links enough for notability, please check out Google Books and Google Scholar. Peer-reviewed scholarly articles are the gold standard in reliable sources which are the basis of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:30, 19 April 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 as hoax. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mindy Tyner

Mindy Tyner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have looked around and cannot even verify that this woman existed, never mind find reliable sources. Not one Google search which is unconnected to Wikipedia. Worst case scenario is that it is a simple hoax. Nominating to delete as per WP:VERIFY and WP:RELIABLE unless evidence can be found. Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 21:32, 16 April 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. - Philippe 23:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red Hot Reiner Peppers

Red Hot Reiner Peppers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. Speedy deleted because of notability concerns. I'm overturning the deletion on the author's request to give it a fair debate. I abstain. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Band member admitted in a blog post that his manager created the article. Obvious COI, also non-notable- that blog and the article are the only thing that google finds. For crying out loud, the band's myspace doesn't even have any friends. The article also claims child actress Tiffany Brissette is a member; I also can't find anything to back that claim up (she's not listed as a member on the myspace page). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. and protect against re-creation. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Protect against re-creation? That's certainly out of the question. You might be misunderstanding my nomination: I deleted it and I un-deleted it on the author's request. This article was never re-created and there's absolutely no reason to salt the page. See WP:SALT for details. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, my bad - I thought they had recreated it themselves (based on the blog post and the fact it's still here). I need to read things more carefully. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:00, 17 April 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. - Philippe 23:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Cowboy Bebop voice actors

List of Cowboy Bebop voice actors (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A useless list of voice actors without mentioning who they play. Some of these actors voice a trivial character in a single episode. Brian Kendig (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unsourced listcruft, that despite its length manages to contain virtually no usable information. ~ mazca talk 20:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: This article isn't encyclopedic, and it doesn't seem notable enough. Dwilso 21:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This was listified from a category a year ago by a bot -- can anyone figure out why? —Quasirandom (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, anime articles do not have cast lists and the voicing of major characters is already covered in the List of Cowboy Bebop characters. Redundant, unsourced listcruft of no encyclopedic or notable value, particularly when it doesn't even say what role anyone plays. Collectonian (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep these all seem to be arguments for rewriting or otherwise reworking the article, not eliminating it. The strongest argument here is that it might (due to the cast listings) not be verifiable. I submit that there are plenty of sources out there to dig through this for anyone interested in doing so. there doesn't seem to be some guidance on the wikipedia list guidelines that meshes with the feelings of the editors here. nothing on there suggests that lists are by their nature superfluous so I don't think we should make the judgment independent from that without some good reason. furthermore, there seem to be fountains of lists of notable figures where the list itself would not otherwise be notable. This seems to me to be a case where the function of the list is a sorting device and an aid to navigation, not an encyclopedic virtue by itself. 24.160.240.212 (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC) (The previous comment is from me (Protonk (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)) not logged in, in case people lend less weight to IP's than users. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete not enough information, not encyclopedic.  Atyndall93 | talk  03:55, 17 April 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 withdrawn by submitter. Seems to be a notable subject, although their views appear nowadays to be outside the medical mainstream. -- The Anome (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Broda O. Barnes

Broda O. Barnes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to have been a fringe medical figure. No independent evidence of notability provided: references provided are to the "official" website of the article subject, and to a book written by the article subject. No reference is provided for the 1942 JAMA paper, nor does publishing one article in JAMA confer notability. Article added by User:Mkronber, each of whose article contributions (to Hypothyroidism‎ and Red hair) have linked to same website, and has not edited on any other topic. According to the Mkronber's own edits, Barnes' Basal Temperature Test "...was never widely adopted in the medical community." The contributions to Red hair stating that Barnes believed that all redheads suffer from hypothyrodism appear unsupported by any other medical research I can find. -- The Anome (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please Google "Broda O. Barnes". You will see he is a famous and revered figure in parts of the mainstream medical community, and a majority of the growing alternative health community. His ideas, which have long been overlooked, are now gaining momentum. Several recent books by medical doctors, claim that his work is the foundation of theirs:
Hypothyroidism Type II, Dr. Mark Starr MD (2005)
Your Thyroid and How to keep it healthy, Dr. Barry Durrant-Peatfield MD (2003)
Solved: the Riddle of Illness, Dr. Stephen Langer, MD (2006)
He is also mentioned in a section of the New York Times best selling book: "Living Well with Hypothyroidism" by Mary J. Shomon, a well known patient advocate in the Thryoid area.
The reason the JAMA article couldn't be linked, was because JAMA doesn't provide links past a certain date. This is only one of many scientific articles he has published. Please do not delete this page, more references could be added to fulfill the Wikipedia.org requirements.
--Mkronber (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I did. The links found there are instructive. Can you find any independent attributable reliable sources that can attest to Barnes' notability, per WP:BIO? One example of a suitable source might be a biography of Barnes, or a review of his contributions to medicine, published in a peer-reviewed journal. Other possible sources might include newspaper articles about his life and works. -- The Anome (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I found this [3] (page 5 references his research and two of his books are listed in the References section, as well as he seems to be referenced several times in this: [4] Elishabet (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep He appears to have many references under the permutations of his name. He is referred to as "Broda Otto Barnes". "B.O. Barnes" and "Broda O. Barnes". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep It's easier in this case to tell as a popular medical writer: WorldCat lists 3 unique books: 324, 172, 267 libraries. Given that they're rather old, from before WorldCat became universally used, I think its significant. More significant yet is that the libraries keeping them include all the major med schools--they would not normally keep popular medicine if it wasn't notable, or from a seriously notable person. DGG (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep From what I can tell he seems to be notable within his specific field, even if not all of his ideas have been adopted, he is still referenced when people discuss hypothyroidism. Elishabet (talk) 01:27, 17 April 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 due to lack of verifiability. Veinor (talk to me) 15:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fear fetish

Fear fetish (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable sexual fetish, original research, no references. Contested prod, procedural nomination. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • You're real dirty, nominating all these fetishes for deletion, you know that? ;-) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not sure we can really call this unverifiable, since I would assume this does actually exist. I don't seem to be able to find anything on it, but searches for "fear fetish" don't find much useful and fear fetish (without the quotes) gets a whole ton of results that aren't related. I'm not comfortable enough to !vote either way, so it'd be nice of someone with better searching skills than I take a look. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I wonder if this would fit into some larger category, that may help look for RS. For what it's worth, I did find a site that lists so called "common" and "not so common" fetishes, and I don't see this, unless it's under a different name. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - it definitely exists, but sourcing is the important thing. I'd have no qualms about saying keep if some sort of verifiability can be found. Grutness...wha? 02:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's been in the Simpsons for crying out loud (I think), extremely notable. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per unverifiable, unsourced, lack of sources available, <snark>and as fancruft if it's been in the Simpsons (I think)</snark>. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless secondary sources are found to prove notability (the Simpsons doesn't count as a secondary source).--Carabinieri (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's unsourced, and a neologism. Redblueball (talk) 11:59, 22 April 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 Deleted, CSD G1. Nakon 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Tennis Game

The Tennis Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, which this certainly appears to be. TexasAndroid (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Texas has it right. Delete. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Intended to be funny. Didn't work. Mandsford (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete It is an incredible show of good faith by Texas that he put it up here instead of tagging it for speedy. This is clearly non-sense. Much love to Texas for not biting the noobs.--Adam in MO Talk 20:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is also not for guidebooks, which the currnet article most is and will be. I would like to note that not speedying is appropriate, since it isn't nonsense and doesn't make A7. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Dear Texas & various editors, the Tennis Game is in fact a real sport. There is a league in which players compete, and have been doing so for the past six years. All home games are played at Mulick Park, and anyone who has questioned the validity of the sport has played it and found it fun, competitive, and physically demanding. Critics are officially invited to visit and/or participate in the next regular season game*.


  • Playoffs not included.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 - roommate to a murderer is not even close to asserting notability, created by User:Jamesbamba - all sorts of problems. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Bamba

James Bamba (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Twinkle didn't finish the nom for Ukexpat (talk · contribs) so I'm fixing it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - thanks Hammer, I think Twinkle is broken :(. Any how, to be frank I cannot figure this one out -- it appears to be a hoax or a spoof. Seeking consensus. – ukexpat (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: James is not a notable person, especially for living with a murderer. Dwilso 21:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic, unless he starts getting featured in the media for this. --Dhartung | Talk 22:07, 16 April 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. - Philippe 23:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Multibreast

Multibreast (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This sexual fetish article appears to be original research, and unverifiable. I tried looking for reliable sources but couldn't find any, just fancruft. The one source linked to in the article is short and insufficient to adequately source this article. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Certainly interesting, but no proof that this is a widely documented fetish. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Possibility of an article about the fiction/mythology but with a different name and with different content. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google Books and Scholar turn up empty for both multibreast fetish and "accessory breasts" fetish. Looking at the site summaries given in the regular web searches, those hits for the search terms appear coincidental. No indication that sufficient sources exist for this. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep until after my surgery. ... ... (kidding, Delete as WP:OR). Where are you going? :p +Hexagon1 (t) 03:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Lolwut?  :P Celarnor Talk to me 23:37, 17 April 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. - Philippe 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BYU Accounting Ph.D. prep track

BYU Accounting Ph.D. prep track (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability not definitively established. Slightly improved version of BYU Ph.D. prep track, which was salted after three attempts at creation--but not enough to stay here. Blueboy96 20:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Universities are generally notable, and departments can be if they are rather reknowned in their field. But a subsection / particular track of a department that itself is probably non-notable? Nope. Delete Bfigura (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete A sub-department program, with no real notice outside the university. The BYU Marriott School of Management is notable, and conceivably individual departments might be, but an individual degree offered by it would not be, and this is just a track within such a degree program. this article has been deleted several times under various titles, and its time to get rid of this sort of advertising.DGG (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete a google search turns up no results not from the wikipedia article or the BYU website.  Atyndall93 | talk  07:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The Ph.D. prep track is quite notable in accounting academics. As evidenced by the "Innovation in Accounting Education Award" which is from the largest most notable accounting academic organization in the world. It has been recognized as a solution to the problem for the large imbalance in supply of accounting Ph.D.'s (see "On Balance: The Magazine of Wisconsin CPAs" (http://www.wicpa.org/multimedia/mayjune07/phdcrisis.htm)). It has been recognized by other professional magazines (see The Utah Business Magazine http://www.utahbusiness.com/parser.php?nav=email_article&article_id=4657) and it has been recognized by independent academics as a solution to the accounting Ph.D. shortage (see Bob Jensen's tidbits (http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/tidbits/2007/tidbits070612.htm). Your google search must have been flawed, because I found all of these links using google search. It is important to consider the size of the community when deciding on the notability of an article. To all of the world this is not the most notable article; however, to accounting academics it is. By my estimates, the Ph.D. prep track is responsible for 5-10% of new accounting faculty produced every year. That is a very sizable effect. The article was deleted before because I did a poor job of writing it, and didn't realize the importance of citing external sources. There are several external sources that discuss the importance of the Ph.D. track--which is the most important criteria for establishing notability. Therefore I think the article should stay. Daw44 (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: This seems notable, but not enough for its own article. A merger would seem to be appropriate. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: With what article would you recommend it merge? I could see creating a School of Accountancy page (BYU's accounting program is highly ranked, innovative, and employs a number of "big" names) that would make it notable. I don't think it fits under the Marriott School of Management. Any other ideas? Daw44 (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This was posted on the discussion page, but I think was meant to be posted here. "Deleting this article is not warranted. As I have stated before, the persons who are best able to judge the relative impact this program has are those in accounting academia. If you are not in accounting academia, ask someone who is to weigh in. There are hundreds of wikipedia articles out there with fewer citations, that are less relavent, and that are obvious advertisement. To be truthful, advertising is not needed for this program. The only people eligable to be a part of it are at BYU, and they will all have a presonal presentation on the program. The only reason for a wikipedia article is to provide a place where the litterally hundreds of people a year who are deciding to accept or hire PhD prep track members another place to gather information about the track.--Jlamro (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)" Daw44 (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:N. Five Years 17:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:N. --Eustress (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Marriott School of Management, move to BYU School of Accountancy and broaden, or delete. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I merged the article with the newly created BYU School of Accountancy and broadened the article. Although I think the Ph.D. program has notability on its own, I will give it a few more years to establish its own notability before starting it as a new article. Go ahead and delete the old page. Daw44 (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to BYU School of Accountancy#Ph.D. Prep Track as boldly actioned by Daw44. TerriersFan (talk) 20:15, 19 April 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. Wizardman 20:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ravens-Steelers rivalry

Ravens-Steelers rivalry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable rivalry with no references. Buc (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. There is always a basic level of "rivalry" between any two sports teams, and writing an article on that is uninteresting and unencyclopedic. When there is an historic rivalry, though, there will be references backing that up, and I think we really need some for this type of article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep A check of the internet indicates that this is considered to be a rivalry by sports columnists in both Pittsburgh and Baltimore. However, if nobody wants to add sources (I don't), then nobody will suffer if the article is deleted. Mandsford (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Readers who are not writers/authors/editors/Wikipedians/whatever will suffer (this is not a Keep !vote, just an insight) --Thinboy00 @982, i.e. 22:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Article basically links this to the Steelers-Browns rivalry (the Ravens were the Browns, who relocated, resulting in bitterness). I am a Steelers fan living in northeast Ohio; I hear plenty about the Browns/Steelers rivalry; I have never heard of there being a rivalry between the Steelers and Ravens. (Ravens-Browns is another story.) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to respective articles. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep with conditions Google search turns up several results from presumably notable websites suck as nrl.com, but if references cannot be provided, I say Delete  Atyndall93 | talk  07:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:25, 17 April 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Live Trade

Live Trade (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page is a hoax. There is no such event schedule to happen. It's a fake based on World Peace One Carvelcake (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I find no google hits: unprecedented for an alleged event of this size. Delete. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and DJ Clayworth. My Gsearches also found nothing, which is particularly surprising for news; I'd assume that this close to it there'd be something out. Without references this is WP:CRYSTALBALLery. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. WP:CRYSTAL at best. Note this deriva-hoax also: Live_Trade_concert,_Buenos_Aires. Fribbler (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (also notice the splinter articles for city performances). I looked up the tour schedules of some of the artists that are supposed to be at the Buenos Aires concert; none have it listed. Definitely looks like a hoax. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax, google search reveals nothing.  Atyndall93 | talk  14:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:27, 17 April 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. The consensus of established editors is that are not sufficient acceptable sources provided to meet wikipedia requirements per WP:N. Ty 01:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Madalina Nicola

Madalina Nicola (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A previous version of this article created by user:Madalinanicola has been deleted twice. This version contains much the same text but it has been made a little less spammy. Is she notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a painter myself. I think with over two dozen national exhibits, with a biographical movie on DVD, after giving art lectures and after being profiled in art magazines such as Gallery and Studio, Art Business News, Washington Post, Washington Times etc you become notable indeed.
--Mthornt5 (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC) — Mthornt5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

  • Neutral. I agree with the above, that those sorts of things would make her notable. However, I can't seem to find much to verify this with. She's got her own website, which has a biography on it, but it's not third-party. There's also this and this, but I'm not sure if the first is reliable and the second isn't very substantial. Will change to keep if more sources can be found. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this is the first article I’m trying to submit. The other two tries were a little clumsy, but I’m improving. Here are the articles and links for my original submission which got deleted for “spam.” Maybe I should have added them as references. Art Business News, a reputable national art magazine. Go down about 2/3 on the page, under NORTHVILLE, MI. Washington Times mentioning the opening of her exhibition title “Celebration”. Between October 7-31. Washington Post, 2/3 down on page one, “Paintings by Madalina Nicola.” I also got a better link for Real Earth Productions. In addition, The Gazz is talking about the screening of the biographical movie “Madalina” at the Library of Congress (see also 4th picture down.) Furthermore, there is Art Showcase Magazine; on top of page 13 of 24 it “Showcase Artist Madalina Nicola.” Also, DDA News, on page 8 of 9, has a press release from Sherrus Gallery for an art exhibit in Michigan. This link is for Super Silent Auction by the Karmanos Cancer Institute. Go to bottom of page 2 of 3 to see the item donated for auction by the artist Madalina Nicola to benefit KCI. I also called Dr. William D. Mett of Art Corporation of America and he confirmed that ACA does indeed represent Ms. Nicola. He mentioned that their website is in the process of being updated and will soon have Ms. Nicola’s art on display. He is located in Las Vegas, Nevada and is available for comments at: 702-736-1787. Also, Vegas Community Online lists Ms. Nicola (2/3 down on the page) as being nominated for the ARTV Awards in the Acrylics category. All these links will come up if you Google Ms. Nicola. There are 3-4 pages with links about her. I hope this clarifies the reason of my posting of the article on Ms. Nicola. Sorry for the long note or if I offended somebody.--Fineartlover (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment It should be noted that the comment above was originally added to the discussion by User:Madalinanicola, the author/subject of the article, reverted, then reposted verbatim under the new ID. --Finngall talk 00:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note This is also due to my lack of experience with Wikipedia. When I first decided to write the article, I was under the impression that it may be beneficial if the User ID and the title of the article are the same, so I would keep everything under the same name. It seem like a good idea at the time. Next day, a friend pointed out that it makes it look like I am Ms. Nicola writting about myself, which is not true. Therefore I changed the User ID to something different.--Fineartlover (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - given username issues, the air of spam is here and will be so at least until reliable, neutral references are provided. Biruitorul (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The references given above are of a trivial nature (listings pages, press releases, photos). A working artist, but not notable.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are numerous links in the notes above which all appear to be legit. Also, an advanced google search brought 4 pages with links about this artist. I think all that makes the artist notable enough.--Chessplayer2008 (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    — Chessplayer2008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Dekisugi (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, spam and WP:COI. Not including abusive sock by the author. Dekisugi (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete nn and needs tons of help...Modernist (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are numerous links in the notes above which all appear to be legit. Also, an advanced google search brought 4 pages with links about this artist. I think all that makes the artist notable enough.--Chessplayer08 (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    — Chessplayer2008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Dekisugi (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, spam and WP:COI. Not including abusive sock by the author. Dekisugi (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete nn and needs tons of help...Modernist (talk) 23:09, 22 April 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 keep. There was an overwhelming consensus that this article should be kept. Certainly, the page would benefit from reliable secondary sources but, since the accuracy of the content has not been challenged, that is an editing matter and not grounds for deletion. There was a single merge suggestion, but that can, if desired, be pursued as a separate action outside this AFD. (Non-admin closure.) BlueValour (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US Airways livery

Is there any reason this article exists, apart from that it was split out of US Airways due to essentially being a gallery and taking up too much room in the main article? Even though it may be a 'sub article' it is stil in the mainspace, and it is lacking references from reliable sources (airliners.net is NOT a reliable source for anything) which discuss US Airways livery in any detail. The one sentence from an Afd discussion which always sits on my mind is 'The solution to getting rid of cruft is to delete it, not create a separate article for it'. If one must use photos on US Airways, the solution is:

  • Expand the history section, and remove both (TWO) photos of the A330 in that current section
  • Reduce the year by year timeline section from 2004 onwards
  • Insert images from commons in applicable sections and utilise the commons template which advises readers that there are files/media on commons related to this article.

Wikipedia is not a list of various links to airliners.net nor a fansite. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. I fail to see why any airline article would need to have all of these sub-pages (fleets, airport lounges, flight numbers, flight attendant relevant to one airline only (who cares what shade of lipstick they can wear, lets get real people), non notable subsidiaries, frequent flyer programs (Aeroplan excepted due to it being listed on a stock exchange), articles relating to cabins for one airline, etc, etc) when Pan Am, El Al and Biman Bangladesh Airlines don't. Those are the featured articles relating to WP:AIRLINES, if that means anything. Россавиа Диалог 19:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- Россавиа Диалог 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Россавиа Диалог 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a well-developed article showing information potentially useful to those who track airline histories, or have an interest in aviation marketing and corporate projection through graphical art. Its only primary flaw is its dependence on photographic evidence in airliners.net, but this should be correctable if it is given sufficient time. A user's disenchantment with the existance of various unrelated articles is hardly relevant to this discussion.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Huaiwei --Appraiser (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Huaiwei. This is valid, well-presented, and well-sourced information. It was a worthy split from the main article as it covers a subtopic in a lot of detail with a lot of images. Splitting an article should not be taken as an excuse to pick bits off it and AfD them separately. ~ mazca talk 20:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I never heard the term "livery" applied to a fleet of airplanes, or used to refer to logos and colors; sounds like a Brit thing to me. But the subject seems notable enough, since it bears upon the corporate image of an airline. Suggest that someone might want to make a disambiguation page for livery, which has a different meaning on this side of the Atlantic (see, e.g., livery stable) then on that side. Mandsford (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It's quite a common word to describe the paint scheme. See Aircraft livery. NcSchu(Talk) 23:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge back to main article - This is much to insignificant to warrant having an article of its own. This seems no more significant than the fact that some of my local buses are painted with an advertisement all over, instead of having posters pasted on to them (as wen I was young). Alternately convert it into a proper article on the history of the airline (with history, not liveries as the focus. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'll disclose my bias for the keep - I originated much of this article when it was a section of the US Airways article. I agree with Mazca that "Splitting an article should not be taken as an excuse to pick bits off it and AfD them separately." although I'll also admit to having done that in the past. This is well sourced, and while I will agree that airliners.net is not authoritative for discussions, I believe the photographic evidence quite authoritative. —Cliffb (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - What an unpleasant screed written above (russavia). I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why this article would receive more attention and detail than equivalent articles about other companies (the El Al comparison, or more so the comparison to now defunct Pan Am). But frankly it is a poor argument to suggest that something is not worthy of the attention paid to it if a small selection of like things do not receive the same attention. 24.160.240.212 (talk) 03:34, 17 April 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 redirected to correct article. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 20:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gewher 88

Gewher 88 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The name of the page is a typo. There is another page with the same subject, correctly spelled at Gewehr 1888 Landroving Linguist (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Redirect Likely enough typo that it would make a decent redir. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect I've actually screwed this up trying to look these weapons up before. The correct article might do better at Gewehr 88, as this seems to be the actual model number according to the article, but that can be addressed later. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:35, 16 April 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evaluating internet sources

Evaluating internet sources (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Little more than an essay (sourced, but seems like a school report or something. Violated ban on how-to guides per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Angrysusan (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Pretty straight WP:HOWTO JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a how-to, and it's also outdated. Yahoo! has not been a subject directory for many years, for instance. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - How-to article. —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as a how-to, which is pretty sad since quite of bit of the content is well written. I wonder of the content might be useful at Wikihow? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per WP:NOT#MANUAL. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above. Is definitely an essay. Gary King (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, essay, original research, and Google advocacy. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Transwiki! This is lovely stuff... for wikibooks or possibly even wikiversity, if either will have it. I can inquire if no one else wants to. Wikihow might well be interested as well. -- phoebe / (talk) 07:06, 21 April 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 keep. John254 20:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] North Devon Gazette

North Devon Gazette (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

no notability asserted Frog47 (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep despite the fact there is no firm assertion of notability, I think this is notable enough for inclusion; we aren't a paper encyclopedia, after all, so we can afford to include loads of small articles like this that most won't care about but will interest some people. We have no size limits, and so should include whatever fits within our other criteria. There is room for articles on nearly verifiable subject. There is no harm in including an obscure topic, because if it is truly non-notable, people simply won't search for it or link to it. It will not create a significant server load as such, and though there are some articles that are just completely non-notable, this isn't one of them IMO.--Jaeger123 20:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Keep - fails WP:CORP. No reliable sources are given. Dekisugi (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Afd is not cleanup. SunCreator (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Seeing the references today. Changed to keep. BTW, AfD isn't cleanup but one of the main concerns of an article deletion is notability. Dekisugi (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
My mistake. My comment should of went in reply to the nominator. It's a good idea to check for notability yourself however. SunCreator (talk) 12:40, 17 April 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 keep per absence of delete preferences. (non-admin closure) Skomorokh 00:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grazielli Massafera

Grazielli Massafera (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Brazilian actress with just two works on brazilian TV. No relevance. Helderton (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • This actress has not true notability. She is a product of brazilian media. 189.82.103.31 (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: providing that the author adds notable references. Dwilso 21:38, 16 April 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 keep - without prejudice against renomination if no significant improvement is done. - Philippe 23:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Web based presentation tools

Web based presentation tools (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#LINK Arx Fortis (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete the article, I am working at this article , I cannot prepare the full article in one day. I have made links so that users can visit & see sites and add about the respective site --Narendra Sisodiya (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep AfD came nineteen minutes after article creation; give it a couple of days at least. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • A note to Norendra, it is starting in a bad way, if you're going to make a list like this, it should be of pages on Wikipedia, not external links. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • This is exactly why I nominated it as an AfD. As-is, it's a directory of external links. If the links were changed to internal links, and each item received some descriptive info, it would reverse my opinion of the article. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per JeremyMcCracken, this article is pretty dubious at the moment but I am happy to assume good faith for now and allow the author to expand it. It certainly is a topic that could be encyclopedic. ~ mazca talk 20:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per JeremyMcCracken. the article brand new, so let's assume good faith and give the man some time to work before we start judging the article. constructive criticism or correcting mistakes yourself will improve things far more than "OMG! a policy violation! must delete immediately!". Grandmartin11 (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Grandmartin11, I ask that you don't assume tone or intent and not read anything into my nomination other than what it states. Your comment implies an alarmist tone and approaches a personal attack. AfD is not a "must delete immediately" situation. There is a completely separate speedy delete process for that. AfD is a process, not an automatic deletion. Dialog before decision is exactly why the AfD process is in place: to discuss the article's merits and drawbacks before a decision is made. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
      • nominating an article for deletion not even an hour after it was created just seems rather alarmist to me (though i wasn't intending to imply this is an attack) and IMO, flies almost directly in the face of WP:GOODFAITH. Grandmartin11 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Regardless of the timing, the content warrants an AfD nomination per the two policy links I provided. The author is clearly building a page of external links (20+), rather than links to other Wikipedia pages. This is not so much a "work in progress", but rather a work going in a completely wrong direction. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whether or not the nomination was premature, the article as it currently stands seems to be little more than a link farm for a number of non-notable commercial websites. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
If I remove the all external links, will there be any need to delete the page --Narendra Sisodiya (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Notability needs to be demonstrated for the articles included. See if you can find some other links that demonstrate the notability of these (mentions in magazine/news articles would be great). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the subject matter should be kept, but not the format that the content is currently being presented. I think this should be converted to list form, instead of how it is now, which is basically a list of external links. Gary King (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have made changes now, externals links is converted to internal red links, see guide me now -- Narendra Sisodiya (talk) 09:33, 21 April 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 keep. AfD withdrawn by nom, abundant evidence of notability. Pigman☿ 22:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Thorn

Charles Thorn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I denied Speedy Deletion for this one because it wasn't obvious as to his notability or nn. After some fairly obvious Google[5] and G News searches[6], I was unable to come up with anything substantial WP:V. Loosely fails WP:BIO at this point unless you believe all professors are automatically notable. I can't judge his impact on his field without more info. Pigman☿ 18:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Cool. I'm perfectly willing to withdraw my nomination with these facts in hand. I'll try to integrate some of the info into the article so it doesn't seem so bare of supporting WP:V info. I guess I could close the AfD? Thanks, Pigman☿ 19:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest speedy closing this one. The Goddard article would seem a good reference to add to support his notability, and linking to Goddard–Thorn theorem (I think = proof of non-existence of ghosts) would be useful. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Already linked the theorem in the article. I'm going to put your searches on the talk page as a ref for more research. Pigman☿ 22:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per above discussion. Certainly satisfies WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 22:24, 16 April 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GMC Wrecker

GMC Wrecker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete unsourced one-liner about a truck. Presumably gm trucks can be modified into myriad possible uses, a tow truck being one such, does each get its own article? I don't think that is a good result Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence of notability for this particlar model of a GMC tow truck. Dgf32 (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I'll support deleting even though the article is new; it doesn't appear to be an actual model that GMC produced, just a general reference to any GMC towtruck (which could, depending on the age, a GMC C/K series or GMC Sierra). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, appears to be an unofficial modification at best, and with no decent sources it's original research if nothing else. ~ mazca talk 20:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete From what I can find this is normally done (officially!) by dealers & aftermarket vendors. It was never a GMC product per se, even if it is possibly the most common chassis. --Dhartung | Talk 23:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Carlossuarez46. nneonneo talk 23:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:29, 17 April 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. - Philippe 23:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fraught

Fraught (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

An unreleased short film that fails to meet notability criteria. (WP:Notability (film) , WP:Notability) No significant press coverage. No full length reviews. No major awards, no IMDB entry. One minor award at a local film festival is not enough to establish notability. Likely self promotion (see Frogshavelegs (contribs)). Dgf32 (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Dgf32 (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable- wasn't even big enough to make IMDB. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Amend my original !vote; agree with using the {{wi}} tag on the page per Saberwyn. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If deleted, recreate as soft redirect to Fraught at Wiktionary as a plausible search for a dictionary definition. No stance on actual deletion. -- saberwyn 02:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (and redirect to Wiktionary per Saberwyn). Despite the large number of 'references' provided, there's nothing that can be described as significant coverage of this film from a reliable source. The fact that it doesn't even have an entry on IMDB is evidence of how non-notable it is - even the most minor films have IMDB entries. Terraxos (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't even need to check the article, "not being on IMDB" is a damn good reason to remove this. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - non notable film and likely self promotion. Dreamspy (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Wishy-washy Keep If the film has been produced but not in circulation, it still may have some redeeming features. The note: "Fraught won Best Australian Film at the 2007 Melbourne International Animation Festival" struck me as being at least an area to look at before I would cast a vote for deletion. From the edit record on the article, it is clear that the original submitter was trying to develop the article and that other editors were assisting. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC).
    • Comment I looked into that before nominating. The Melbourne International Animation Festival ia apparently a small film festival for animated films. There was no significant press coverage (or other independent source coverage) of the awards given by the festival. Dgf32 (talk) 17:04, 18 April 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 A7.' - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Katharine westfall

Katharine westfall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possible hoax. There is a "Katie Westfall" who plays on the Harvard soccer team, but I can't find any evidence of a Westfall on the track team. jwillbur 17:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete Non-notable subject. Article does not even suggest notability. Nominating for speedy delete per CSD A7. Dgf32 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 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 --JForget 01:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lost island timeline

Lost island timeline (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a contested PROD. As far as I can tell it's entirely original research. There are no reliable sources. WP:PLOT problems. the_undertow talk 17:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete Entirely original reasearch with no possiblity of verifacation. No assertion of notability of topic. Dgf32 (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Wow. So much OR it's stunning. I can't see a possibility of salvaging it without rewrite and extensive sourcing. Pigman☿ 18:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Per WP:OR,WP:PLOT, and way too much speculation. Tabor (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete nice idea, potentially useful, arguably notable given the popularity of the show and its impact, but hopelessly original research, speculation and unencyclopedic. Is there a "Lost" wiki it could move to? Nick Connolly (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Something like this maybe. [9][10].  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 23:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
so we can add redundant to the list and not as a good as the one on another wiki as well :) Nick Connolly (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Completely original research and quite a lot of it might be completely made up. I see absolutely no way this article could be sourced properly or otherwise salvaged. ~ mazca talk 20:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • delete OR, complete lack of sources. i see no option beyond a complete rewrite with verifiable sources.Grandmartin11 (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:OR.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 23:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete So many OR problems that NOT#PLOT isn't even worth mentioning. – sgeureka t•c 12:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:30, 17 April 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. The following opinions have been discounted: "keep per old AfD" (I am not a search engine) and "delete per R Physicist" (no such editor commenting here). Sandstein (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Myrzakulov equations

Please read the talk page before commenting or closing. --Random832 (contribs) 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (3rd nomination)
Myrzakulov equations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural renomination - the last debate accomplished nothing but a lot of shouting on both sides. Due to the unusual circumstances and the disruption caused by the poor structure of the previous discussion, I think this AFD should have stricter rules than usual - absolutely no comments other than a single delete or keep [with reasoning explained] (or a comment from a user who has made neither) will be permitted below - anything else will be moved to the talk page. All other discussion, including direct responses to !vote rationales and suggestions that there are single-purpose accounts, should go to the talk page. --Random832 (contribs) 17:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep clearly notable as the subject of multiple independent reliable sources [11], [12], [13]. Yes, it does appear that Nugmanova is promoting this name, but--it's working. He's not the only one using the term now ([14]). JJL (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, because: (1) notability is not established from independent sources (list of authors includes either Myrzakulov or Nugmanova, or both), and there are no independent references from established scientific journals; (2) the subject belongs to a class of equations truly famous (Landau-Lifshitz type), and any relevant contribution from the article nominated here should be included in a Wikipedia entry about Landau-Lifshitz equations (the entry does not exist yet, but it should, as it is a well-known topic in mathematical physics). (Proscience) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.165.96.184 (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete self-promotion with little or no meaningful independent peer review. These are non-notable noodlings on the old Heisenberg ferromagnetic spin equations, from which the author seems to be seeking to grab some publicity. The author will disagree with this take but the author is not an independent source. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep It is notable. The choice of name might not be optimal, and the writing might not be the best, but I do not think that precludes an article here.--Filll (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, or possibly move to an article about Myrzakulov. The equations named after him, whether or not named by him, do not seem particularly notable, but the fact that he created the equations might be. Perhaps Florentin Smarandache could be a precedent for a move. Concur with 128.165.96.184 that an article on Landau-Lifshitz equations should exist, but this is not a a good start of that article, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for the same reasons as I mentioned at the last AfD (near the top and near the bottom; if you want to read it you can skip the long dialogues) and on the talk page. Also, as a note, I've e-mailed R_Physicist to ask him if he would like to contribute anything, since he previously asked me to do so should this come to AfD again. I may be putting up an arguement of his by proxy, but it shouldn't be counted as a !vote (not that that means anything, really). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for the same reasons as I used at the last AfD (particularly note that other specialists in this field will be teaching at Myrzakulov's institute). And, as proven above, other people are using the name now. The article still has problems, though, but I would not say that it cannot be improved now, so shortly after the last AfD. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, no sufficiently independent sources, a credible case made for self-promotion. Every variant of well-known equations does not deserve an encyclopaedia article. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • delete as I said last time, as a matter of common sense, if a particular scientific theory in a very active field is published on almost entirely by one group, and a few scattered other people, it is probably not generally notable. If it is not yet generally written about because it is still new, it is almost by definition not yet notable. If X and his students are almost the only people who call something--even something notable-- X's Law, or X's Equations, then that name is not generally used and is almost certainly self-puffery. Newton's Laws are not named after him because he & his associates called it so. The same goes for everything else in the world. You can publish any number of papers referring to yourself, and it won't get you anywhere. That's why we want by substantial 3rd party coverage. I cannot say for sure whether this work is scientifically important, but I can say for sure that the name is not widely used, and that would hold even if it the papers were published in a language I understood even less of. and in a field I knew even less. It was mentioned last time they might be notable under another name, but nobody was able to suggest one, which proves my point exactly. DGG (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename/merge into an article on Myrzakulov himself probably consisting primarily of this material. There are two separate issues in play here. The first is whether the equations themselves are "notable". Clearly they're notable enough to appear in reasonable journals, but we tend not to have articles on typical academic papers and there's no evidence these are anything other than fairly workaday papers with typical minor impact on the field. That said, I think a broader coverage of workaday papers would be useful and I'm reluctant to delete the material simply because the subject is not a major one of broad importance. The second issue is whether the phrase "Myrzakulov equations" is a self-promotional neologism. That certainly appears to be the case, with no google scholar hits outside works published by Myrzakulov or Nugmanova. That sort of thing tends to rub people, including me, the wrong way. I suggest a reasonable compromise is to make an article on Myrzakulov himself and to include this material as the bulk of the article. It's not that he seems to be hugely important, but enough so that an article on him would be reasonable. There are quite a few academics in my own field with articles who seem no more prominent than Myrzakulov is in his. Jpmonroe (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, article (more accurately, the list of equations and primary source academic papers), establishes zero notability for itself in the wider world, expert or not. MickMacNee (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. A quick google scholar search will show that the papers in which these were introduced are cited by a large number of people; just not necessarily by this name; I can understand why others might be under the mistaken impression that it isn't. I think perhaps a tutorial for Ebsco and GScholar searches is in order. Also, this nomination doesn't really bring anything new that hasn't been refuted by the past AfDs. Celarnor Talk to me 03:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per R Physicist. Hesperian 03:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OR. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per DGG per failure to satisfy WP:N and lack of sufficient independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for achieving notability. Using a term in one's own scientific publications is not an independent source to prove notability. Citation of Myrzakulov's papers in papers by others does not show that the term "Myrzakulov equations" has gained currency. Edison (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Attempt at self-promotion through unnotable equations. Mathsci (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete These equations do not seem to have wide currency, their major proponent on Wikipedia has a clear conflict of interest as co-publisher wiht the originator, and no independent expert has credibly asserted their significance. Crucially, I find no evidence that these are currently significantly discussed (i.e. other than passing mentions) by anyone outside the originator's group. Guy (Help!) 11:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As I said the last time, there is an uncountable number of <insert the name of one or several physicists or mathematicians> equations, for example, the Witten–Dijkgraaf–Verlinde–Verlinde equations. Generally, they are used by a small number of people close to the named ones. Only a few of them gain notability among their field and so satisfy WP:N (significant coverage by sources independent of the subject). Here it's not the case, (look at google scholar), most of these papers are by the author or by Nugmanova. The difference with the above one is flagrant. No significant coverage by independent sources, it's pretty clear. Maybe in 30 years ? But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. For now, it's self promotion. CenariumTalk 16:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment (Please move this to the talk page or to my !vote above if necessary.) I argued against inclusion of the Erdős–Rubin conjecture, even though I'm the Rubin in question, as I didn't consider it notable. Perhaps Myrzakulov might consider similar reasoning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per R Physicist. We should defer to the judgement of experts in such cases, rather than driving them away (and thus I would like to register my strong disapproval with Cheeser1's disgraceful behaviour last time around). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per R Physicist. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per R Physicist (and strong agree with Dihydrogen Monoxide re Cheeser1's behaviour). —Moondyne click! 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Two comments. 1. Who is this R Physicist? Unless we know his name and credentials, his opinion means nothing. 2. This article has notability problems. Whoever made this article, he should clearly explain why these equations are notable in words understandable for a University student, with in line references to third-party sources. Then this article could stay.Biophys (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • His credentials have been verified - he works out of a major institution. Orderinchaos 17:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per R Physicist, and Guy's excellent summary. --InkSplotch (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per R Physicist, Proscience, and Guy. Woonpton (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per DGG, Guy and Cenarium. When citing a paper by Myrzakulov it makes sense to refer to these equations as "Myrzakulov's equations" and with the numbers he uses for them. But that doesn't mean that they are notable. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per R Physicist and the others. Non notable, cruft, poorly written &c. The Rationalist (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per R Physicist and Guy. If we are to be a reputable encyclopaedia, cruft and self-promotion has no place in it, even if it's subtle, technical and looks well-referenced. Orderinchaos 17:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It's rare to see DGG saying an article should be deleted, so I read his arguments carefully, and I concur with them. To be notable, this subject needs multiple independent sources discussing it. That may or may not ever be the case; at this time, it certainly doesn't look like it. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as cruft and self-promotion. Dorftrottel (troll) 07:38, April 21, 2008


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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 18:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DM SAT

DM SAT (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)


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

The result was keep. - Philippe 23:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kannada movie Krishna

Kannada movie Krishna (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete no indication that this movie exists or is notable, no sources, and barely an article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, borders on an A1 speedy to be honest. Difficult to even identify the subject let alone establish notability. ~ mazca talk 20:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep per improvements and references by utcursch. ~ mazca talk 21:13, 19 April 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. - Philippe 23:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gerry Dick

Gerry Dick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nn local news personality, fails WP:BIO and so nn we don't know when or where he was born redflags of non notability for modern bios Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete: I am leaning towards delete, because it seems like a hoax. Dwilso 21:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not a hoax, but he isn't very notable. Merge to TV show. Reywas92Talk 22:07, 17 April 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Kennedy Club

Ted Kennedy Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and possibly non existant society - no reliable, independent secondary sources. Guest9999 (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete No notability and no sources available to establish notability much less to verify information within the article. Dgf32 (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Although apparently real, doesn't appear notable even after a search for sources. --Dhartung | Talk 20:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete "It was established in 2005 at the University of St Andrews as a spoof of the socially exclusive Kate Kennedy Club." Oh you wacky college kids! Mandsford (talk) 21:05, 16 April 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 deleted as a copyright violation under WP:CSD#G12. I note that it is probably possible to write a good article here, but not by starting with a copyright violation. GRBerry 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Giuseppina Nicoli

Giuseppina Nicoli (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:N RC-0722 247.5/1 17:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment She appears to have been beatified, which is a pretty good claim to notability. However, the article has been copied from here. Delete, but allow for recreation. Zagalejo^^^ 17:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep – A recent beatification may be of interest. --Bwpach (talk) 20:19, 16 April 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 --JForget 01:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allen Cars

Allen Cars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can find absolutely no sources for this 'company', with the pages that are linked as the company websites, not existing. I'd suspect this is a hoax. Google search only returns the Wikipedia page listed here. Listing for AFD so consensus can be found before deletion. Rudget 17:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete There are various inconsistencies in this article which indicate that it may be made up. The fact that none of the external links work certainly counts against it. Even if (pace Kurt Weber) the company exists, I don't see how we could ever satisfy WP:V in writing an article about it. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete G3 Appears to be nothing but a WP:HOAX given the holes in the info. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think that the article is a "blatant and obvious hoax", so I removed the speedy. Though I do think it is a hoax and should be deleted. Jon513 (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete It's a G3. I endorse the speedy tag. It should not be removed. This is a WP:HOAX and not even a good one.--Pmedema (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Notice the logo is the generic "A" icon from multiple cleanup templates (e.g. {{copyedit}}), and none of the ELs work. Creator appears to be in good standing; wish they'd come here and elaborate. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. So, Mr. Giannopoulos ran this company for negative-30 years (from 1989 to 1959)? You'll have to excuse me for being dubious. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, but not speedy. I can overlook the inconsistencies as typos, but absolutely nothing in the article can be verified in a gsearch. A modern company with 100+ employees should be getting so me kind of hit if it's at all notable. (note: because this needs a gsearch at all to be seen as a hoax tells me this isn't eligible for speedy deletion.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:45, 17 April 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. Veinor (talk to me) 15:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Danielle Babb

Danielle Babb (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a non-notable person and reads like an advertisement for her business. It was probably made by Ms. Babb herself. On top of it, not a single thing is referenced because I could not actually find any biographical information on Ms. Babb outside of her own personal website. Others have noted that it seems the "people" who have worked on this article have not worked on any other articles at all. All in all, I can't find a single reason as to why this belongs on Wikipedia. Coumarin (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Article creator is indeed an SPA; their only edit was creating this article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, she's quoted in various news articles about RE investing or the housing market generally, but reliable/independent reviews of her books out there and fail WP:BK. --Dhartung | Talk 20:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. This atrocious and blatant advert should have been speedied as baldfaced spam a long, long time ago. Qworty (talk) 18:15, 20 April 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 CSD criterion A7. Clearly non-notable, no sources at all. Rudget 17:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Telo

Daniel Telo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I've a feeling this is a hoax.

17 year old " R&B singer, songwriter, actor, dancer, fashion designer, and model".

Claims single "Spaces" reached #41 in the Aria Charts

I can find no listing for a single called "Spaces" on the web site

or for "Daniel Telo"

Claims "creative force and lead singer of R&B boy band Cherish" formed in September 2000 - He'd be 9 years old.

Only band called Cherish at the Australia Charts - but it don't look like a boy band!

Claims signed by Sony-BMG - no result for "Daniel Telo" from search at http://www.sonybmg.com.au

Claims song "Spaces" was used in Bring It On: In It to Win It - IMDB says no

Only thing I could find was Yahoo answers (not a reliable source) which lists it as a song in straight-to-DVD Bring It On: All or Nothing

I did find Master Telo's bebo page - though interestingly no mention of any music career.

If it's not a hoax, struggles for WP:MUSIC and fails WP:RS. Camillus (talk) 16:28, 16 April 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. Existed, but notability not established. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Chaos (Palestine)

Operation Chaos (Palestine) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject lacks cites, and doesn't obveously exist. Larklight (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. At best this is a dicdef. A handful of Google Books sources (snippet mode all) indicate phrases like "their departure soon came to be known as 'Operation Chaos'" and "it decided to leave Palestine without handing over authority to anyone—the policy that came to be known as Operation Chaos". Seems like there should be better sources than that. It might be coverable in a sentence or paragraph in British Mandate of Palestine#World War II and post-war end of Mandate. --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 16 April 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. - Philippe 01:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tasmanian Life

Tasmanian Life (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

How notable is this magazine? It appears to be a local lifestyle/comsumer mag and advertising vehicle, but has a circulation according to its website of just 7000 and many of these would appear to be free copies left in hotels and airport lounges and hairdressers'. Emeraude (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete: A localism. Free weeklies and monthlies are wonderful things, but they're like the lilies of the field: they bloom for a day and then are no more to be found among men. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:23, 16 April 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 keep. John254 19:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stefano Bianca

Stefano Bianca (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, no reliable sources (fails WP:RS after performing a google search. Fails WP:BIO. Not every architect in the world needs an article - especially one as unnotable as him. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 04:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep I'm not sure how reliable Archnet.org is, but a number of his publications are listed there[15]. also this from the Metropolitan Museum of Art [16], where he was scheduled as a lecturer. DarkAudit (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Archnet is a pretty reliable source in my experience - this guy is clearly published. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I know of this person's work and the information on Archnet is pretty reliable as previously stated by Joopercoopers. Deevincentday (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 15:46, 16 April 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:CSD#A7, WP:SNOW, WP:IAR, WP:BLP, WP:ROUGE, and WP:ZOMGINVOLVEDADMIN. barneca (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Bongo

Ronald Bongo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Repeatedly reposted page by someone whose purpose seems to be to "inform investors" that Mr. Bongo is a convicted felon. I think this violates WP:BLP, but bringing here for fuller discussion. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. There are sources for the claim that this person has been convicted of a felony, but not all felons are notable; in fact, most aren't. I don't see any sources to verify that this is a notable person, and the article appears to exist primarily to disparage him, which would be a violation of WP:ATTACK and WP:BLP. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Article reads more like an attack piece of the subject as stated above. I'm also not sure if he is notable enough regardless of the attacks for an article anyway. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and FisherQueen. nneonneo talk 15:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as CSD#A7. It's been deleted 5 times for A7 or A10. I think it pretty clearly fits the bill for A7. I just removed lots of stuff from the article (sleuthing people's phone numbers) and some personal comments with BLP overtones, but I still think this is speedy material. In fact, I had already warned the author I would block him for disruption if he recreated this article for the sixth time. I won't re-delete myself, but will defer to NawlinWiki's judgement that AfD is appropriate. --barneca (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply I think speedy deletion was completely appropriate; maybe this deletion discussion will help persuade the creator that it isn't just that you are a rouge admin, but that this article really does need deleting. And of course, it's on more watchlists now... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm about 2 seconds away from blocking the author. continually deleting other's comments on talk page, recreating the article, placing hangon tags, and reverting my removal of BLP material. If you don't think a block for the next such action is appropriate, you should tell me so now. --barneca (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Orangmike has indef blocked the author for disruption. Since the only rational reason I could see for this AfD is FisherQueeen's "persuasion" theory, I suggest a speedy now that education is no longer an issue. Not quite rouge enough to do it myself. --barneca (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Barneca? OK with me to speedy the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC) *Delete, salt, block. I tried to tag one of the SPA writer's attempts at posting this in the morning for speedy. The (perhaps unintended) effect of this article will be to greatly raise the subject's hits on Google and other search engines, indirectly publishing this derogatory information on the web. The article is an attack piece. The writer was informed by DGG, Barneca and the nom about the WP:BLP problems with the article, and simply blanked the warnings and reposted the article. (Note that Barneca has removed the worst of the BLP information at the time of writing this post). The subject is not notable, the subject's former company was not notable, and the article violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Xymmax (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Well, I guess I waited until the party was over to put on a lamp shade :). My admittedly nonadmin view is go ahead and speedy - that unlisted phone number stuff was bad, and for all we know the felony stuff was mischaracterized, or overturned on appeal. Xymmax (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You're going to make me learn how to close an AfD, huh? I should probably get some practice, so I'll do it. Give me a few minutes to read directions, and somone take a look in half an hour and let me know if I forgot to do something. I'm about to speedy close this per WP:CSD#A7, WP:SNOW, WP:IAR, WP:BLP, WP:ROUGE, and WP:ZOMGINVOLVEDADMIN. --barneca (talk) 16:18, 16 April 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 keep. - Philippe 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TetraVex

TetraVex (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable computer puzzle game. Unless being bundled with some other games is notable, there is no claim of notability. I prodded and de-prodded the article after an editor raised a flag on the talk page. -- Swerdnaneb 15:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak keep I'm not sure it isn't notable. Over 500,000 google hits on the title, and I'd say it's a unique title. There might be problems with independant sources. The game is real, "published" and looks quite widespread. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Being included as part of Microsoft Entertainment Pack is at least a claim to notability. If reliable sources can be found I'd strongly suggest that this be kept.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep It was part of the Windows Entertainment Pack 3 and Windows Best Of Entertainment Pack, both of which have sold a considerable amount. It may not be the most popular game on there, but it does have a significant claim to notability. It contains valuable information on a popular game. Frankly, I don't see a single reason for deleting it. Rdbrewster♪♫♪ 12:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete; insufficient coverage for an article of its own, but might fit into an article on the entertainment packs mentioned above. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, are you saying that if there isn't an article to merge Tetravex into (right now I don't think there is) then it should be deleted? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - The inclusion into the entertainment pack makes it sufficiently notable. User:Krator (t c) 13:14, 21 April 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford College of Arts, Business and Technology

Oxford College of Arts, Business and Technology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Company fails WP:ORG and is not-notable. Fails Google test. It is spam, and fails to cite sources. Delete GreenJoe 20:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Trade schools are not automatically notable. some of them are, but it needs to be shown in very case It hasn't been shown here. DGG (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - The article needs a lot of work, and maybe sources will be hard to find, but it seems notable to me.--SevernSevern (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom.--SevernSevern (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This is advertising for a privately run vocational outlet. It may be registered with the ministry but it's not a university or community college. Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - not a university, & per DGG etc above. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per DGG etc. This is a trade school, and isn't particularly notable; there are several larger and more notable ones in Toronto alone. Risker (talk) 19:03, 20 April 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 no consensus to delete; default to KEEP without prejudice to renomination later. - Philippe 23:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stirrings Still: The International Journal of Existential Literature

Stirrings Still: The International Journal of Existential Literature (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article on a minor academic journal with fewer than ten issues published, 35 unique google hits indicates that lack of sources in the article is paralleled by lack of sources in the real world. Probably a bit too specialist to get much attention. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete; as much as I hate to see verifiable information deleted, this journal is only held in six university libraries according Worldcat (5 in the USA and 1 in Aus), and I cant see any independent coverage of it, so this Wikipedia article is essentially only a directory listing. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If it's true that this journal contained the first collection of critical essays on Chuck Palahniuk, then we should at least mention it somewhere. However, I haven't been able to prove that. Zagalejo^^^ 17:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Academic journals by their very nature gather little attention from the WWW. However, this looks like a rising star. I see no reason to take away interesting facts from Wikipedia; it's notable enough. OptimistBen (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete while i sympathize with the view above, there are still journals that succeed and journals that do not. There's no way to guess it's a start until it has actually risen. as an free online-only publication, we can't look for library holdings or subscriptions, so the usual ways of telling do not work. DGG (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • comment-Not that google scholar is the end all be all of the web, but Chuck Palahniuk's articles in this journal don't show up there. That doesn't mean the author of the article made that fact up, not does it make it any less of a fact, but just pointing that out.24.160.240.212 (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, they do: [17]. Note that the articles are about Palahniuk's work, and not written by Palahniuk himself. Zagalejo^^^ 03:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ten issues is actually reasonably impressive for a journal, and this is published out of a quite significant department. Keep. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:43, 17 April 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Untitled The Sound of Animals Fighting Album

Untitled The Sound of Animals Fighting Album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Mostly crystalballery. --Finngall talk 15:25, 16 April 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 No consensus to delete. The debate on whether to keep as is or merge can be taken up on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ultrafast shape recognition

Ultrafast shape recognition (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject of this article fails to meet WP:N, further the page is an orphan page. 81.132.192.68 (talk · contribs) Text copied from article talk page. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 11:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Google turns up a whole load of information, so it easily passes the notability guideline. I'll add a category and try to find a few more links, but it's a useful article to have. PeterSymonds | talk 12:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, variety of science sources like here. But none are 3rd party, happy to keep if WP:N can be established.. SunCreator (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Chemical database. Can go as a search method. Currently covers only 2D search. Shyamal (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am only finding one citation of the paper, but I expect that nine months is a pretty short turnaround in computational chemistry and their technique should be useful for macromolecular people. Many of the early Google hits for the article title are just the paper being indexed by the several databases, but they also were written up by New Scientist Tech and National Foundation for Cancer Research. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep based on citations from Eldereft. Propaniac (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment there is no doubt that the term has been used. I am aware of a wide range of molecular search algorithms and papers can be titled - fast search ..., ultrafast search etc... depending on the paper style, authors etc. Some may just dryly state it as a linear time algorithm for the search of .... or suchlike. The matter however is not merely whether there exists a reliable source, but whether the content is substantial enough for an article of its own. This should not have been a delete discussion, but a merge discussion and the effort should really be where such a single paper concept should go. 04:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no doubt that the author of this approach, Graham Richards, is very eminent and I suspect this approach will become important. Nevertheless this article is premature and should be merged, perhaps as Shyamal suggests, to Chemical database. I also note that Graham Richards does not have an article and that should be remedied. He is notable for his science and his administrative work of head of the school of Chemistry at Oxford, resulting in a major new building being erected. --Bduke (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Have added a paragraph on search by conformation to Chemical database to cover this topic. Shyamal (talk) 02:21, 20 April 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 keep. - Philippe 23:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ivory Harris

Ivory Harris (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Petty criminal/gang member, NN per WP:BIO. Nothing done of national significance or noteriety. Endless Dan 15:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Notability is asserted, backed up by Google hits, and all the sources are reliable (New York Times, Houston Chronicle, TIME). PeterSymonds | talk 15:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 16:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - appears to have plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources.--BelovedFreak 16:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 17:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Of course he'll come up in news reports, which will be unavailable in a couple of weeks, but I can't see what makes him notable - petty drug dealer, murderer - Delete, otherwise we'll need an article for every single felon in the world. Camillus (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - He's mainly known for causing an interstate manhunt and for being covered as an example of New Orleans's issues and Hurricane Katrina crime in Houston. Petty is defined by Merriam-Webster as "2  : having little or no importance or significance" [18] - For several months Houston police aggressively tried to find this guy. Also Harris was sentenced in a federal court. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree that this article seems to have reached a nationwide notability and is relevant on the problems brought on the Katrina situation and the crime that ensued in various cities. --Hourick (talk) 17:08, 16 April 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. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael F. Hollander

Michael F. Hollander (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced autobiography. --Finngall talk 15:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Notability is asserted but he doesn't appear notable enough to warrant his own article. PeterSymonds | talk 15:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Says a lot of stuff but not enough to scrape together to satisfy WP:BIO. Vanity. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 06:46, 17 April 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 keep per absence of delete preferences and successful application of the Heymann Standard. (non-admin closure) Skomorokh 00:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warren Faidley

Warren Faidley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disclaimer: bio articles aren't my area of expertise so this AfD might be in error. From what the article says he might very well be notable but none of the claims are backed up by any sources. Sections of the article read like pure advertisements and I have serious doubts on some of the claims made (his "best selling" book isn't even carried by Amazon any more). With the removal of all dubious and uncited claims it would leave the article as a stub and lacking a claim to notability. With that said I do see some potential for a complete rewrite to pass WP:V and WP:N. BJTalk 14:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep: providing the author provides more reliable sources. Dwilso 21:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The author doesn't seem very active, I'm not holding my breath. BJTalk 22:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are plenty of sources available from Google News and Google Books, including a 48 page book about him published by Penguin. I've put some references into the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:21, 18 April 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 - Djsasso (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] XenovoX

XenovoX (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album by a practically non-existent band. Claims to notability don't amount to much, and I can't verify any of it, as the AMG link is to an unrelated album. Closedmouth (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Also nominating:

Jason Rash (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

for similar lack of notability. His sole claim is the apparent contribution to The Sound of Regret, but AMG makes no mention of him. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:55, 16 April 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 - Djsasso (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sabra Express

Sabra Express (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This travel agency fails WP:CORP. Relative to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAS-Be Airlines, any travel agent can charter an aircraft, sell seats and call themselves an airline, but to call yourself an airline with an Air Operator's Certificate, and possibly without codes (not a prerequisite of course) is pushing it a bit far. Россавиа Диалог 14:37, 16 April 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 speedily deleted as a duplicate (non-admin close). PeterSymonds | talk 16:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aiding and Betting

Aiding and Betting (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reason the page should be deleted GrahamHardy (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Clicked on save page too soon, meant to put cat=F

Reason is that the Aiding and Abetting (novel) is the real page, Aiding and Betting is not the real name... GrahamHardy (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete WP:CSD#G6; article already exists. PeterSymonds | talk 15:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Creation of article in existance (and a spelling mistake at that). So tagged! Obliterate... Poof! --Pmedema (talk) 16:39, 16 April 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 Snowball Keep. Non-admin closure SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ana Maria Gomes

Ana Maria Gomes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has been here 3 years, and consists of 1 sentence. Not every member of every foreign government is notable.

  • Keep. Where to start? First let's get the facts right. She's a member of a parliament, not a government, and for about half a billion people that parliament is not "foreign". Next length of an article is a reason for expanding it, not reducing it even further to nothing. As regards notability, members of national legislatures are considered to be ex officio notable, so the same should apply to members of the legislature of a supra-national organisation which many regard as having greater powers than countries. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Valid stub of notable person. DCEdwards1966 15:24, 16 April 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck Shiflett

Chuck_Shiflett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck850 (talk • contribs) 2008/04/16 01:19:49

  • Delete Non-notable columnist for a non-notable newspaper. PeterSymonds | talk 15:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Person isn't notable, nor does it have reliable references. Dwilso 21:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable local journeyman journalist--there are hundreds of thousands of them. Delete and salt if he pays to get published through Lulu and tries to become notable around here by doing so. Qworty (talk) 18:13, 20 April 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. - Philippe 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Home productions

Home_productions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Small group which is NOT known at all.Jeneral28 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Meets no criteria for notability that I can see. Propaniac (talk) 18:43, 16 April 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 Keep --JForget 01:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jadeitite

Jadeitite (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Members.

There is no word or stone called jadeitite. The correct spelling is jadeite. Please help me remove every mention of jadeitite. I am concerned about the confusion. Thank you! Jade Hunter —Preceding unsigned comment added by JadeHunter (talk • contribs) 2008/04/16 06:02:10

  • Keep Google shows that the statement that the word/stone does exist, and that they're two different things. Plus, there are references. PeterSymonds | talk 15:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) Keep. According to Jadeite and Jadeitite, the former is a mineral and the latter is a metamorphic rock consisting primarily of that mineral. This is borne out by the references included in the Jadeitite article, as well as the numerous Google and Google Scholar hits. Deor (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable and verifiable. Clearly a different substance.--BelovedFreak 17:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 17:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per above.--Berig (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Snowball Keep - as per WP:SNOWBALL Earthdirt (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Definitely keep as per the references cited in the article and the distinction between the mineral and the rock dominantly composed of that mineral. Aleta Sing 18:09, 17 April 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 no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 23:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pennsylvania United States Senate election, 2010

Pennsylvania United States Senate election, 2010 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

While the information on Spector appears genuine, the rest of the article is pure speculation, with the only source being the Colbert Report. Beach drifter (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:CRYSTAL. A whole number of things could occur between now and 2010. Recreate the article when the elections are imminent, not two years before. PeterSymonds | talk 15:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and recreate when it happens.--Berig (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • keep this exact thing is mentioned in WP:CRYSTAL as an example of an appropriate topic and is linked off the main page for the 2010 senate elections. article needs improvement (a few unsourced statements), but i do not feel deletion is the appropriate course of action.Grandmartin11 (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It appears to me that it consists entirely of unsourced statements. Beach drifter (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As the next election for the position, this will immediately attract speculation no matter who were to be in the running, and political speculation for positions of this sort is widely reported and considered notable. Does need sourcing, almost certainly sourceable.. DGG (talk)
  • Keep (and move to United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 2010, the slightly more awkward standard). I've added sourcing for the Specter announcement and the speculation about Matthews, which is sourced to the NYT Magazine, making it reliably sourced speculation. It's important to keep in mind as DGG notes that this is not just the next time there will be a Senate election in PA, it's the next election for this seat. The six-year cycle means that the next election may be discussed that much before it actually occurs. --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, consistent practice has been that sources are available for the next election which Dhartung has demonstrated. Davewild (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, the US government could collapse within the next year and a half and then this would look stupid. WillOakland (talk) 02:51, 19 April 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 keep. - Philippe 00:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dorothy Ruth

Dorothy Ruth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Babe Ruth's daughter, fails WP:BIO. Delete -- Y not be working? 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative nomination: mention the book at Babe Ruth and redirect -- Y not be working? 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Keep I have to weigh in against the proposed deletion because I think that Dorothy Ruth is notable as being the daughter of famous major league baseball player Babe Ruth, and for being the author of the book "My dad, the Babe". This article is also notable in that in clears up a very common misconception about Dorothy being the actual biological daughter of Babe Ruth, instead of being an adopted child. Sf46 (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, so it's not the place to "prove" any biological relations. Anyway, her notability can't automatically come from being Babe Ruth's daughter. PeterSymonds | talk 16:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Changed to weak keep after some thought. Some of the sources are reliable but my main concern is her notability for an article in her own right. Some people, like Jenna Bush, Mary Soames (nee Churchill) made a notable authorship/public career for themselves which originated from their parent's fame, but Dorothy Ruth doesn't seem to fall into that cateegory. PeterSymonds | talk 11:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Babe Ruth. Not notable enough for an article of her own. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Close relatives of major historical figures are of legitimate interest to researchers. There's enough information available about her [19] to write least a couple of good, sourced paragraphs. A merge to Babe Ruth would be clumsy. Zagalejo^^^ 17:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Author of notable book. --Eastmain (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - only would be notable because the book is about her famous father and I don't even consider the book notable. We're not talking about Stephen King here. --Endless Dan 19:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - I don't consider the book notable seems to me to be well within WP:IDONTLIKEIT. McJeff (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - There is more than enough published information available in the various Babe Ruth biographies and elsewhere to support a Wikipedia article[20]. BRMo (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

*Delete What has she done to make her notable? The article just says "she was born, she got married, she had kids, she wrote a book about her dad, she died"... I don't think just being the daughter of Ruth makes her notable and the book is a minor work at best. If someone can fix the article to make HER more important than I could change my vote but right now it just seems like she didn't do very much. Spanneraol (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC) You guys convinced me, changing to keep. Spanneraol (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Worldcat says the book is in at least 200 libraries in the United States. That probably makes it notable. See Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative_professionals, which includes the criterion "... had works in many significant libraries." --Eastmain (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply "works" would imply more than one book..I'm still leaning towards delete but just barely. Spanneraol (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, no, doesn't work for me. They bought the book because she's Babe's daughter. The book is about Babe, she is irrelevant. Being shelved is an indicium of notability, but if we don't have anything meaningful/interesting/verifiable to say about her other than her birth and her association is a quasi-popular book, we shouldn't have a standalone bio. -- Y not be working? 02:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Dorothy Ruth was in the news from the 1920s to the 1980s. The mysteries behind her birth seem to have been a big deal when Babe Ruth was playing. There's plenty of information available about her. Zagalejo^^^ 04:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
        • There are 123,291 libraries in the US. 200 out of 123,291 libraries doesn't seem like much. --Endless Dan 12:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sf46 and Zagalejo. McJeff (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Of COURSE being the son or daughter (adopted or otherwise) of a famous person may grant notability by itself. It doesn't automatically do so, but given a sufficiently famous person it does. Jenna Bush, for example, has her own wikipedia page. This is of course not to mention her authorship.24.160.240.212 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Babe Ruth. A brief sentence or two explaining the relationship and mentioning the book is sufficient. As she was the object of some attention, she is a plausible search term. --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per enough reliable sources. Here's a head start.
    • "DOROTHY RUTH HAS $34,224; Estate of Ball Player's Adopted Daughter Disclosed in Court." New York Times, June 30th, 1935
    • "RUTH'S HOMER NOT LUCK.; Some Fans Believe His Little Girl Inspired Mighty Clout." New York Times, Ocotober 8, 1927
    • "Legal Battle Over Ruth's Estate Threatened by Adopted Daughter" The Sporting News, December 15th, 1948, Page 2

SashaNein (talk) 19:53, 17 April 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 deleted by User:Barneca per WP:CSD#G3. Snowolf How can I help? 14:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roen Ourant

Roen Ourant (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Probably a hoax. George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 13:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment It got worse after the nomination. I've tagged it for speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete G1 or G3. Both apply here. Utterly useless and an abuse of editing privileges. DarkAudit (talk) 13:54, 16 April 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 both. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SYDCON

SYDCON (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable gaming conventions. Prods were added and removed, but no sources were added; notability tags were added and removed, but no sources were added. With no secondary coverage and none forthcoming, they fail to meet WP:N and should be deleted.

Also nominated:

EYECON (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Only 110 hits on the Australian Google, no reliable sources in evidence or presented in the article; fails WP:ORG.  RGTraynor  13:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete article appears to be completely made up of OR, and as already stated, fails WP:ORG. RC-0722 247.5/1 17:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am not certain why these 2 conventions are any less notable than other conventions listed at Gaming convention. Because conventions are hardly a minstream activity I would not expect them to be mentioned in the mainstream press who I suspect would not see convention participants as part of their readership hence perhaps a lack of google hits.--Matilda talk 04:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete both No evidence of notability, seems to be advertising. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Both, both seem to be advertising for conventions that are not particularly notable. Some conventions like Gen Con definitely meet the bar, despite being niche events, but there is no indication that these ones are anything more than a couple of dozen enthusiasts playing games in a high school. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:37, 19 April 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 keep per unanimity of respondents (non-admin closure). The possibility of merging/redirecting is left open to editors of the article. Skomorokh 01:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daddy Long Legs (musician)

Daddy Long Legs (musician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This musician seems to fail WP:BIO. PROD was contested with comment: "This man co-founded the notable 90's alternative band "The Blood Hound Gang" and deserves a page here." While Bloodhound Gang is notable (4 albums on indy labels, just about passes the criteria), this does not make each member notable. It also seems that there's no real independent coverage of the person's biography, making it hard to write a neutral article. B. Wolterding (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, there's the rub. The only way I've been able to reconcile those two statements is to read "notability" in the part you quoted as meaing "something worth writing about apart from the band" rather than notability Otherwise, criterion 6 would be a nullity. To put it another way, given your interpretation of the section, can you provide an examaple of when would someone meet criterion 6 without meeting one of the other WP:MUSIC guidelines? Xymmax (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The German punk band Soilent Grün does not satisfy the other criteria, but satisfies #6 since some of their members later founded the notable band Die Ärzte. However, there's so little verifiable information about this band that it is actually described in a subsection of Die Ärzte, as #6 suggests. --B. Wolterding (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, your reasoning is impeccable. I bow to your rhetorical powers. I'll endorse a merge/redirect of the manner you just cited. Xymmax (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Usually I would agree with the idea of a redirect to the band's article, but in this case there are two notable bands of which Daddy Long Legs was a member, Wolfpac and Bloodhound Gang. My recollection of precedents in a case like this is that we need to keep the musician article because there is not a neutral or valid way to choose which article the merge target should be. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak redirect to Bloodhound Gang per B. Wolterding's reply to Xymmax. I say weak because I would not be surprised if notability could be established for this artist with a bit of research, but the current state of the article makes no attempt to establish notability outside of his former membership in the band. If the article is improved as requested, I'll happily change to keep per WP:HEY. -Verdatum (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep per Paul Erik. I totally missed the Wolfpac information in the lead this article needs cleanup. I'll get started on that. -Verdatum (talk) 19:04, 16 April 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 No consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fergus O' Hare

Fergus O' Hare (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Autobiographical article, the subject of which does not seem to be notable. A Google search finds five references to Fergus O' Hare, two of which are Wikipedia articles (one is a redirect to the page under discussion), one which seems to refer to a Broadway actor, one which is a personal message on a Bebo page and one which may be referring to the subject of this article as it pertains to North Belfast 1973-82 election results. One reference referred to in the article (www.ark.ac.uk/elections73-81lgbelfast.htm) results in a page not found and the other (www.coisceim.ie) is entirely in Irish. LittleOldMe (talk) 09:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Hi, have you tried anyone over at WP:IR? There may be someone there who may know more and can add to this article?--Starrycupz (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Googling his name in Irish gives a bit more information. He has been intervied by RTE and the Andersonstown News on Irish Language and Northern-Irish civil rights; and appears to currently be in charge of an Irish language radio station (Radio Failte). Still, scant information at best though! Fribbler (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: He played an important part in the bringing down of Stormont.Harrypotter (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless wikipedia is going to include every schoolteacher in the world who has been elected to a local body and who has been published.86.42.197.145 (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as above, proof of notability is severely lacking. A local celebrirty perhaps. But much too local Fribbler (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. If any of the organisations he helped found is notable, then maybe, but few if any of them seem to be. --Helenalex (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral, leaning to keep if I can steel myself to say that in cases like this, the guidelines are broken. The article suggests someone who might meet our notability criteria, but there is no sign of the substantial coverage in reliable sources. However, this sort of article reveals a massive structural bias in the notability guidelines. O'Hare is claimed to have had a long track record of important roles in the civil society of Northern Ireland through a period of turmoil in that society; he was not necessarily front-page news, but as a co-founder of two significant organisations, his role was not trivial. However, if he had just once been brought on as substititute in a rugby or football match at a senior amateur level and was known for absolutely nothing else than that half-hour of ball-kicking, this AFD would probably be closed as a speedy keep. For the last two weeks, I have been tracking all new stub-tagged articles added under Category:Ireland, and half of them are sportspeople, many of them miserable one-line sub-stubs referenced only to a database, many of them destined to remain permastubs. There is quite enough systemtic bias in wikipedia arising from our contributor profile, but it is ridiculous that we are adding to that by guidelines which allow the retention of articles on people whose only apparent is source is a name in a list of players, while an article like this slips through gaps. We have references which tell us that O'Hare chaired a national campaign (having been a founder of another), was a city councillor, a school headmaster, manager of a pioneering radio station, and author of two books, but because he apparently didn't do enough self-promotion to get a news feature article, our guidelines say the article should be deleted. Yet if O'Hare had done a bit less scholarship and put on football boots instead, he'd be a clear keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep per my rant above, now that SeoR has confirmed I haven't entirely lost my reason! :)
      I'm also concerned by the nominator's complaint that one the google hits was "entirely in Irish". O'Hare has written a scholarly book in Irish, so that's unsurprising, and I hope that the nom was not implying that Irish-language sources are somehow to be discounted in assessing notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - as a rather new user, I have had similar concerns to those outlined immediately above. Many local figures of note achieve little traceable publicity (local newspapers rarely have nice online archives) while (no offence, all relative) trivial "celebrities" and sportspeople get multiple "hits." This is an example of someone who has done a great deal, and should be here. Having, as BrownHairedGirl, if to a lesser extent, waded through hundreds of such stubs / database-entry folk, etc., I think this is a clear case for flexibility. If the machine needs feeding, I know where I could find dozens to hundreds of better candidates, but I would rather keep most and hope to, even sometimes help to, see them grow. SeoR (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep His election to Belfast City Council, and headmastership of the first Irish language school in NI, are actually fairly notable, some other matters aren't trivial. PatGallacher (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note This article was created as a duplicate of Fergus O'Hare (note the absence of the space after the apostrophe). This AFDed copy (the one with the space in "O' Hare") of article has been expanded, so if it is kept it should be moved to Fergus O'Hare. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Fergus O'Hare - created by the same editor and very similar in content to this of an older version of this article, but has the benefit of a correctly spaced title. Agree with BHG and PatGallacher that - provided the claims can be referenced - they do enough to demonstrate notability to me. Warofdreams talk 15:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As a new user, I'm not sure if I can change my vote, but after hearing many arguments in favour of keeping; I'm converted. I have seen so many one-line articles for Finn Harps' under 18's goalkeepers etc. that Mr. O'Hír's article has much more reason to exist. I did a quick straw poll of my family, and both my parents knew of him. (we are irish of course :-) ) BHG, as far as I can see, is right, as always (from what I've seen). My delete vote was based on a strict interpretation of the rules which, in reality, should not be as strict as to be unreasonable; The one problem is that the artcle appears to be autobiographical. But were it to stay, I'd be willing (as would others i'd imagine) to edit it from a neutral POV! Fribbler (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you can change your vote. Just use <s> and </s> tags to strike through it. Warofdreams talk 02:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
And you are correct that the rules should be ignored when it is sensible to do so. As nominator I too have been persuaded and am in favour of keeping the article. LittleOldMe (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge into some other page.Red Hurley (talk) 23:28, 21 April 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 due to crystal ball concerns and failing the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stevie Hoang

Stevie Hoang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I've searched around a bit, and I'm not finding anything...he had a mention on NME, but it was only a video, and his All Music Guide profile is just his genre and the title of his album. Nothing there to write a biography, or an article about the album. (see also Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Heads_up) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:24, 16 April 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 - as totally inappropriate under WP:COI, WP:ADVERTISING, & WP:CRYSTAL. Orange Mike | Talk 13:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tex bronson

Tex bronson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources, likely hoax, none of film he is featured in seem to exist. Jon513 (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

General comment - Please do not bite the new editor, this article has been created in good faith. One cannot expect a new editor to have a knowledge of the wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially when the articles was created without an such guidelines being made clear.

  • Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete If not a hoax, then non-notable bio. PeterSymonds | talk 09:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Tex Bronson is the main character in a series of scripts and the film Mummies Of The Third Reich, which is currently in production by K2 Productions under the Atlanta-based company Adrenaline Pulse Entertainment. The Tex Bronson Character is played by american drummer Kerry Denton, who has been in various mainstream bands including long-running rock band, Mother's Finest --Adrenaline-pulse (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable character from film which hasn't actually been made yet ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Character Tex Bronson is played by Kerry Denton, famous american drummer from various mainstream rock bands. --Adrenaline-pulse (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So you said earlier...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The material listed is non-objectionable and is not favored advertising. It is strickly depicting the actual information of the subject and affiliates such as production. --Adrenaline-pulse (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FICT among other things. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as recreated article which has been previously deleted (per both the deletion log and User:Adrenaline-pulse's talk page. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Further to User:Adrenaline-pulse's comments on my user page please see below:

From the deletion logs: "04:44, 16 April 2008 Veinor (Talk | contribs) deleted "Tex bronson" ‎ (A7)"

From the articles history: "(cur) (last) 05:25, 16 April 2008 Adrenaline-pulse (Talk | contribs) (6,866 bytes) (←Created page with 'Tex Bronson, is a fictional movie character labeled as an adventurer, rebel, weapons expert, and ex-test pilot for the American governmen...')"

If there is a better way to show this than please do not hesitate to let me know. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete: as given above. WP:BITE is a worthy and essential conduct guideline, but it doesn't immunize articles against scrutiny just because they're written by new editors.  RGTraynor  13:20, 16 April 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Itsilver solutions

Itsilver solutions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Seems like just another startup. Cannot find enough third party references to judge notability. Only first-party sources provided. soum talk 08:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hasn't been around long enough to be Notable. Nor have the people who founded it. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable company. Youth doesn't necessarily mean unknown, but it is in this case. The founders are also not yet notable. PeterSymonds | talk 09:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not very notable of a company, and hasn't been around long enough to get its own page here. Razorflame (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - it is too new, lacking evidence of notability, and can not find reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Common to do list: 1) meet friends in school, 2) start band or business, 3) write wikipedia article the next day. I'm surprised they skipped the myspace page step.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:59, 17 April 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 Keep. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greater Nepal

Greater Nepal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article on a supposed irrendetist feeling amongst Nepalis. Sourcing for this concept is clearly faulty. [21] describes rumours of literature used during armed conflict, I personally smell a psy-op there. [22] is an interview with one lecturer. The details on the Anglo-Nepalese treaty and how this treaty is being viewed can be covered in the article on the treaty itself.

This is a politically sensitive subject, since this notion is being used against people of Nepali origin in India. It is not a demand that has any real backing in Nepalese politics, though. Soman (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A google search for "greater nepal" produced 526,000 results!Shalimer (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment for me, googling gave 3250 results, out of whom only 198 were not filtered as "omitted some entries very similar to the 198 already displayed". Notably large amounts google-hits are blog/forum comments, rants regarding Prashant Tamang, wiki mirrors, etc.. I'm not saying that the term has never been used in political life, but I dispute whether this is a real political concept and not just paranoia from Indian newsmedia and Bhutanese government. --Soman (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Right! i searched without commas "". But you do get Hindustan Times and Times of IndiaTimes of India Shalimer (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep The subject is clearly notable. It's lacking sources, but that's no reason to delete. PeterSymonds | talk 09:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete : This is a baseless propoganda by some unknown groups . The references are some personal blogs only - Tinucherian (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Every irredentist cliam will ruffle some else's feathers. There are many simmilar articles (see List of irredentist claims or disputes). The validity of the claims or its improbability is not a matter of debate for its inclusion. Greater Nepal has been mentioned in Indian newspapers too. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment : The references are confined to a few blogs and just a lecturer's interview. The leader of Maoists of Nepal Prachanda says that Greater Nepal was a "media-created stunt." http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1273683.cms
  • Keep a GBS search convinces me but we do need better references in the article. gren グレン 11:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I have yet to read and understand the deletion policy, but this seems to be a ridiculous proposal. (a) it is about the basic concept of "Greater Nepal" that existed prior to the Sagauli treaty, and (b) that it has some bearing in Nepali politics, as the issue of Maoist propaganda suggests. It may not be mainsteam in Nepali politics, but its there. Vishnava (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't get what's so bad about the sources and why its neutrality is disputed - its Nepali and Indian newspapers, not blog or personal sites. And the article is brief and to the point - it describes the pre-Sagauli Nepal and why the "Greater Nepal" concept exists and what currency it has in Nepali politics. There is no judgement being made about whether the claims are right or wrong. Vishnava (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
And the point about "paranoia" in Indian media - if it exists, its a notable fact, isn't it? That point of view is also represented in the article, which does not insist that it is part of mainstream Nepali politics. So why the deletion? It has been duly noted in the article that some consider that the Indian media is paranoid about this. Vishnava (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Note to closing Admins : Vishnava is the author of this aricle
Comment: Neither Wikipedia policy nor guidelines forbid article creators from participating in AfD discussions or direct closing admins to discount their arguments if they do. Such debates are evaluated on the merits. That aside, there is a crucial flaw in the Delete proponents' argument: that this isn't a serious, legitimate Nepali movement. Stipulating so (which I don't), it's irrelevant; Wikipedia has tens of thousands of articles about fringe movements, crackpots, pseudoscience, fallacies and the like. The guiding premise to whether an article can be included in Wikipedia is whether it is verifiable. If this concept is discussed, if that discussion can be verified, then that meets WP:V.  RGTraynor  16:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Quite aside from the arguments given above, there is also a strong thread in the region of nationalist trouble stemming from Nepalese immigration to Bhutan and adjacent Indian states such as Assam, Bihar, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh. This is more than POV-pushing.  RGTraynor  13:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is written with NPOV tone in mind with disclaimer type words throughout like "some", "in the opinion of Nepali nationalists". The article was reviewed by WP:DYK editors and placed in the Next Update without comment. Times of India is certainly a reliable source. I am not familiar with the Telegraph Nepal source, so I can't comment on it's reliability or the motives of its editors (if any). They claim to be an academic newspaper. If so, then they would be a reliable source. More reliable sources would be very helpful. Note that User:Vishnava did significant writing for this article. Royalbroil 13:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment : Times of India is a reliable source. But as per the article, It rubbishes the information. "This, after their supreme leader Prachanda claimed in a recent interview with TOI that Greater Nepal was a "media-created stunt."
An attempt to delete the AFD tag with a hidden IP address was noticed and the changes were reverted See here - Tinucherian (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep – Seems notable; but certainly needs better referencing. Doesn't deserve to be deleted. - KNM Talk 16:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: The boundary of Nepal was bigger than it is today, also the idea of greater Nepal is supported by some Nepalese nationalists (but not all of the Nepalese people) - the article makes this clear and has reliable sources. Also the article does not seem to influenced by Nepalese nationalist POV, seem quite matter of fact and NPOV really. Pahari Sahib 16:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: The aricle is informative, unbiased, to the point and of relevance to the academia. It may be retained and linked with the article on History of Nepal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki dr mahmad (talk • contribs) 17:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, but has to be improved, clearly. —Nightstallion 17:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It appears to be a legitimate topic for a WP article.--Berig (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable and referenced, NPOV. Yopie 16:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Notable, interesting and sourced.Biophys (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep.seems like an informative article. If I was to read "Greater Nepal" in a newspaper I would have to search in wikipedia to find out what it meant. This article tells me exactly that. Weather it is a "good" or "bad" concept is somthing I can decide for myself, but I need wikipedia to tell me what the concept is.Petethewhistle (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)petethewhistle


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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pussycat Dolls Second Studio Album

Pussycat Dolls Second Studio Album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Future album with no reliable sources. Too crystal-bally at this stage. Spellcast (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. A title, at least, would be nice. —97198 talk 07:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No prejudice against recreation. If someone wishes to create this in future with more sources out, please go ahead, despite this AfD resulting in (presumably) a delete result. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:26, 16 April 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 keep. - Philippe 01:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bottomless pit (video games)

Bottomless pit (video games) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has no references, and I can't see any evidence that the topic has any degree of notability/importance. This article is filled with baseless generalizations and doesn't seem to have any useful factual content. Graevemoore (talk) 05:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Neutral I'm kind of surprised that references can't be found for this, but it does seem like a rather empty idea for an article. JuJube (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Doesn't assert notability and doesn't really contain much encyclopedic info. PeterSymonds | talk 09:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral I don't want to !vote to delete because I know it's a real phenomenon; I'm going to try to find sources. As I've found in writing some articles, there's little in the way of video game glossaries/encyclopedias out there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Huh. Weird. This is a very common video game design element, and it's not inconceivable to find stuff about it in that context. Where would we start looking? Gamasutra? --Kizor 14:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This doesn't seem like an appropriate stand-alone article, but what about a section within an article like Hazard (video games)? Someoneanother 16:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but Cleanup with Sources. The concept of the Bottomless Pit is quite heavily referenced in game reviews - a quick search turned up several here, here, here, here, here and here. It's also referred to in game design books here and here. There's also an editorial involving the concept here. The article needs work, but it should be possible to reference. --Gazimoff (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The problem with the first articles is that they only contain a brief mention that bottomless pits exist as a hazard in the game. The only verifiable information in the article would be a list of games (and, eventually, movies and TV shows) that mention having a bottomless pit. Your overview article is actually about difficulty, and contains only a passing reference to bottomless pits. Therefore, a properly sourced article would consist only of the aforementioned list, and I'm not sure if that's a meaningful article. Graevemoore (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I understand your viewpoint, but I disagree. It should be possible to build an article describing the use of bottomless pits, where they feature in games and how they are used as a mechanic from the review sources enclosed. It can also refer to reception of this mechanic, again citing those reviews. This may also include references to game guides and so on to expand further. The list above is what I managed to come up with in about ten minutes after consulting the Oracle of Mountain View] without referencing other sources, so the potential is definately not exhausted. Gazimoff (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but article should not just cover bottomless pits in video games. Should cover movies, tv shows, etc. RC-0722 247.5/1 17:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable from Gazimoff's links. As for covering non-video games, notice the title of this article. That should be done at bottomless pit, which is a dab right now. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Assuming it were expanded from its current form; I think there's enough to warrant separate articles (I'm a little bit surprised a generic article hasn't existed yet). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand per Gazimoff. --Pixelface (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Gazimoff, and get some references in the article. I'm not convinced about non-trivial coverage here, but IMHO it's encyclopedic and notable enough (barely) to warrant its own article.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, but it would be nice to have an article on bottomless pits in general, with this as one section of it. Everyking (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. This article has potential to be encyclopedic and really interesting, however as it is right now there are no sources and fails WP:NOR. --MrStalker (talk) 13:07, 19 April 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Willenhall Town Bus Stops

Willenhall Town Bus Stops (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
Bloxwich Town Centre Bus Stops (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
Darlaston Bus Interchange (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Non-notable bus stops. Listcruft. Please, we do not need these. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete the first two at least: bus stops are not notable. Possibly delete the third: it is a bus station, so may be notable, but the article is written as a directory, does not assert notability and contains very little encyclopedic information. --Snigbrook (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Also delete the third article unless it is expanded: other than the number of stands and the list of bus routes, there is nothing in the article that is not in the Darlaston article, and it does not cite its sources. --Snigbrook (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why write articles on bustops? There are millions of them in the world.--Berig (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • DElete - we recently dealt with something similar for Birmingham. The right place for this stuff is on the bus operator's website or that of the Passenger Transport Authority. They have a good deal of incentuve to keep up to date, which WP editors may not. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 19 April 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 Merge / split. Rename to Landmarks of Montreal, move appropriate info to List of neighbourhoods in Montreal.Fabrictramp (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Places in Montreal

Places in Montreal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Merge: This article is pointless. All it contains is the first paragraph on various neighbourhoods/attractions in Montreal, each of which already have their own pages. It should also be noted that no other cities have "Places in ***" articles. At the very least, pertinent information should be added to the places mentioned in the article or the entire article merged into List of neighbourhoods in Montreal. MTLskyline (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, I have no inherent problem with this article, we have a similar but less fleshed out List of Manhattan neighborhoods. Of course, this should have references... gren グレン 11:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with List of neighbourhoods in Montreal per MTLskyline. This is a mix of mismatched things (landmarks and neighborhoods). Circeus (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. GreenJoe 17:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or Rename: The information presented on this page needs to be preserved, if not in this format, on some other page. This article was originally a section on the Montreal page but was getting a little long. It was moved here so as to not delete information originally found there. I think this article is a good idea because the format makes use of the Wiki format, images, and text to document the streetscape of the city. Even if it repeats information found on other pages (which I doubt is true in ALL cases), summarizing information from different pages allows the reader an overview not found elsewhere. --soulscanner (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a very weird and illogical mix of neighbourhoods, parks and buildings (Olympic Stadium?) The content is all perfectly valid, but this particular presentation of it isn't really done correctly — accordingly, it should probably be split into multiple articles rather than being kept in this particular form. Merge neighbourhoods into List of neighbourhoods in Montreal; find an alternate merge target for the things that aren't neighbourhoods. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree. Peter, please note that "all the information" may well not be retained in the List article, based on Bearcat's comments and the format of the other neighbourhood List articles cited above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Why not put the non-neighbourhood stuff in a new article? Something like Attractions in Montreal or Landmarks in Montreal (There is already an Attractions in Toronto article). MTLskyline (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Yeah, that's pretty much what I had in mind. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough. Bearcat (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Split in Landmarks of Montreal (rename) and List of neighbourhoods in Montreal (merge). As it is, it mixes different subjects ("places" is too general too keep the page focused). --Qyd (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Split per Qyd - good idea. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Split per Qyd. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Split per Bearcat and Qyd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, Cased closed then? MTLskyline (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Split per Bearcat and Qyd. Whole heartedly agree that the information is valuable. I actually went looking for this exact list and feel others will as well. SteveCoppock (talk) 22:03, 20 April 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 as just a dictionary definition without reliable sources to write anything further. Davewild (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pilot group

Pilot group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems more than a dictionary entry than an encyclopedic one! plus it lacks of citations. Udonknome (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete I can't find anything related to "pilot group" in this context. PeterSymonds | talk 10:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless shown that there is more than a dicdef here. gren グレン 11:17, 16 April 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 no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 01:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Truck Dismount

Truck Dismount (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable computer game. The aim is to "...cause as much damage to the ragdoll physics man as possible". Probably fun, but not inherently notable. Only vaguely reliable source is an interview with the creator, which has a passing reference to the game. Bfigura (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Does return a few hits, but doesn't appear notable enough for its own article. PeterSymonds | talk 10:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It was covered by Game Tunnel (cited) and Computer Gaming World [27](short piece), as well as part of a game exhibition [28]. That doesn't smack of non-notable. Because of its nature, this article could be merged into an article on its creator (along with Stair Dismount, also reviewed by Game Tunnel [29]). That'd leave an article with a lot more credibility. The games do seem influential in an increasingly recognised sub-genre, see Pain (video game), it would be a shame to lose them instead of combining them. Someoneanother 16:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Two other items which would benefit a group article: Stair Dismount 2 is due out soon, Stair Dismount was one of the first games to incorporate ragdoll physics as an integral aspect of play. Someoneanother 03:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, very notable, this game was everywhere just a bit ago. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per someoneanother. Notability is not lost just because a game is forgotten. SashaNein (talk) 14:54, 17 April 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. - Philippe 01:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Student Action

Student Action (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local student government political party. No reliable secondary sources. Original research. SevernSevern (talk) 04:32, 16 April 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sub Officer John Hallam

Sub Officer John Hallam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable fictional TV character, no references, text is mostly in universe with a dash of original research. Just one long text of all the characters plot lines. Polly (Parrot) 03:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete the cruft is strong with this one. JuJube (talk) 03:56, 16 April 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ofay

Ofay (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dictionary article. Already been transwiki'd to Wiktionary. —Chowbok ☠ 02:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as dicdef. Maybe it could be expanded but there's no evidence of notability now--just one example of usage cited. JJL (talk)
  • Delete with no prejudice against recreation if it can be rewritten, and if notability can be properly established and verified. PeterSymonds | talk 10:46, 16 April 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 Withdrawn with consensus to keep, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Randy Boudreaux

Randy Boudreaux (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article claims that its subject has written more than 70 songs for country artists, which would make him notable per WP:MUSIC. However, I can't find a single reliable third-party source to verify any of this article's content; the only hits I'm turning up with are trivial in nature if at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn The Dove Award win is good enough for me. This article is still thin on reliable sources, but he seems to just barely meet WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:05, 16 April 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, although I did chuckle at the video...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laughing Baby

Laughing Baby (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Not notable Ecoleetage (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

*Keep there is a slate.com feature written specifically about this video. Laughing Baby. I'm going to include it in the article. Protonk (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

    • That slate article is about a different video than what is linked from the Laughing Baby article itself. The AIG commercial shows clips from the video in the Wikipedia article, not the video from the Slate article. Do we even know which video this article purports to be about? Neil916 (Talk) 08:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete Hot damn, you appear to be correct. Protonk (talk) 08:44, 18 April 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 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poker Is Rigged

Poker Is Rigged (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Totally OR, no RS. ukexpat (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Pure original research. MalwareSmarts (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree, pure OR. Renee (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Spell4yr (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Author Comment, I would like those who suggest deleting this article to perhaps research the references I have provided. Almost none of this article is OR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pates11380 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - none of those references appear to be RS per WP:RS – ukexpat (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of verifiability via reliable sources TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 02:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as unreferenced synth Bfigura (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete essay, OR, POV, etc. JJL (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment much improved but still doesn't add much to the Online poker article; merge if some of it is seen as valuable. Still some OR/SYNTH (e.g., the suspicion part). JJL (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete not an article. JuJube (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research and inappropriate synthesis. Maxamegalon2000 05:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete a Wikipedia article, threads on forums, some random website that has nothing to do with the subject, and some guys blog do not constitute reliable sources. Celarnor Talk to me 06:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Author Comment, I have adjusted the references slightly in accordance with what Celarnor has said. The article is taken from sources found on http://www.pokerstars.com and http://www.absolutepoker.com to name a few. These two sources are extremely reliable, multi million dollar coorporations in the poker industry. Please leave more feedback so I can try to imrpove the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pates11380 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Your links just go to the main page of some online poker sites; these aren't pages about the subject. Celarnor Talk to me 08:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, a wikipedia article is not considered a reliable source. Please review that. Celarnor Talk to me 08:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Author Comment, All references have been updated. Those sites have unique and original, reliable content.

feedback I've left some comments on your talk page about helping the page. BananaFiend (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
rename - I think "rigged poker" or "online poker rigging" is a reasonable topic for an encyclopaedia. I've left some advice on the author's talk page, and if they seem interested in editing I might help to try save this article. BananaFiend (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Author Comment I've made as many changes as I can to ensure that all content is sourced and referred to. I want to make one last change to the article title from "poker is rigged" to "online poker rigging" but I am not sure how to do so. All feedback is very much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pates11380 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete - The article Online poker already covers this subject in the section on Integrity and fairness. If there is cited information in this article that is missing from Online poker please put it there. As an independant article it is not sufficiently cited and reads far to much like OR due to this. LeilaniLad (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Pure original research, not one bit of it is what an encyclopedia should have. Razorflame (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Author Comment Last two comments pleaase read the above statements I have written. I have changed this wiki article so that NONE of it is original research. It is all entirely drawn from reliable sources elsewhere. Please don't be so quick as to spam "OR" on my article when I have taken a lot of time researching and drawing information from other sites.

As for the "online poker" covering this subject. I had already read this wiki article prior to creating this one and I found that the two are entirely different and this one is far more indepth and explainatory.

Author Comment This is not an essay. This is research done from several different information references compiled together to form an article that is entirely unoriginal research.

Please can all further comments be constructive and explain what parts are OR and what it is that makes this article an essay. All criticisms are taken into account and adjustments are made so that this article will not be deleted.--Pates11380 (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Read ESSAY. It is an essay and OR because it takes information from multiple sources that aren't about the subject and uses it to synthesize information. Your citations aren't about poker being rigged; they're about human psychology and game theory. That's good for someone writing an essay or a paper on the subject, but it is bad for an encyclopedia article. That's not how we work. For this article to work, it should be retitled to maintain a more neutral point of view of the subject and include references that are ABOUT THE SUBJECT. Celarnor Talk to me 16:12, 16 April 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.