Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 21

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

The result was delete. Singularity 02:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Turner

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

Does not pass the threshold of notability. Subject of article was a local television journalist, who apparently was a fine person, and whose tragic death was a loss to the community. Local celebrities are not necessarily notable. His principal claims to notability seem to be that he is the subject of a 39-page book written (and apparently self-published) by his brother and that a section of a Kentucky road was named in his honor, but those do not add up to WP:N. Several of the external links in the article no longer point to content about him, and I had to delete the link to the blurb for his brother's book in order to add the AfD template because the book link is on a blacklisted domain. Orlady (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nomination. Also, Wiki does not function as a memorial. Renee (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and/or redirect to WYMT-TV. Probably the most logical solution. Mandsford (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Sounds like a fine person, but purely a memorial article. Edison (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a memorial service. It pains me to recommend this, but Wikipedia policy precludes otherwise, delete as a merge to WYMT-TV would be inappropriate.B.Wind (talk) 00:51, 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 delete. Singularity 02:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Keylock

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

Fails WP:BIO due to lack of substantial coverage. It seems that he is often "mentioned", "namedropped" or whatever in the context of Brian Jones' death. The article does not cite sources. Google does give some hits which mention the name (such as [1]), but there seems to be no substantial biographical coverage. A film mentions the story [2]. Now is this real? a legend? merely fictional? In any case, I do not think we should have a biography of a (probably) living person based on these thin sources. B. Wolterding (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, I'm not sure being a driver for a rock band counts as encyclopedic. No sources cited. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • In itself, no - but in the bigger context of a notable musical career (see Otis Redding and Larry Williams for two such examples), it would be. Unfortunately in the case of Tom Keylock, the problem is lack of independent coverage. The little bits mentioned in the article fall short of WP:BIO standards - and it's well short of Mal Evans standards. B.Wind (talk) 00:57, 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 Delete. Pastordavid (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] House Shoe Musik, Vol. 1

House Shoe Musik, Vol. 1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod was contested. Reason was: mixtapes are not notable, fails WP:MUSIC. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 23:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Blair - Speak to me 23:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I did some searching - while the album is produced by Snoop, it is not notable without any reviews by independent and reliable music sites/magazines, which I could not find. Staeiou (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ziggy Sawdust 15:41, 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 delete - Nabla (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stay Down

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

Upcoming album by the Smoking Popes. Album completely fails WP:MUSIC. Not notable, and the only source is that album was allegedly played at some bar. Admc2006 (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• delete per nom.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 23:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I also spent about 10 minutes hunting for more sources to verify the information but could not find any. Paradoxsociety (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Ziggy Sawdust 15:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no sources, and no assertion of notability. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced, textbook case of crystal ballery. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:25, 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 Delete. Pastordavid (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vegas Rummy

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

Not notable, as per WP:MADEUP and WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT. A card game of which no record exists in the real world. Grandfather Clock (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep Google does have a few sources for "Las Vegas Rummy" as oppose to "normal" Rummy. Perhaps it can be reduced to a stub by removing the OR (by someone more expert at the game than me). PeterSymonds | talk 09:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• This article may now be deleted. I have posted the information elsewhere since wikipedia seems to show no interest in the gathering of knowledge. Patsissons (talk) 02:56, 17 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Its completely lacking references/citations inline or otherwise, however this just makes it a bad article, so I would propose that either it gets some references to improve the article.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 23:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Not a notable variation of rummy, possibly made up by the author or played in a select group of friends. --Dhartung | Talk 05:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete no sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziggy Sawdust (talk • contribs) 15:42, 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 delete. Cbrown1023 talk 19:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of high-end audio equipment manufacturers

List of high-end audio equipment manufacturers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I propose deletion for this reason: it is too difficult to define "high-end" or "high fidelity" with respect to specific products or specific manufacturers. Different observers draw the line in various places. Additionally, the page has become an across-the-board linkfarm with very little utility for the reader. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, unsourced, subjective, no clear criteria for inclusion. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, originally I objected removal, but now it seems like the right thing to do. Adamantios (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, inherently biased Ziggy Sawdust 15:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: If that is the case, but AfD is not for resolving NPOV issues. WilliamH (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If an article cannot be written in such a way as to comply with NPOV, then it should be deleted. Presumably that's what "inherently" means in this context. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Sorry, I am aware of that and thus should've elaborated further. I agree. High-end is incredibly vague and there is intrinsic POV in it. Unless a suitable NPOV means of collectivising said manufacturers can be found, my thoughts on the matter are Delete. WilliamH (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per above discussion. I would suggest renaming, but I can't think of a name for this article that would provide a clear neutral unambiguous inclusion criterion. As it is, it's a bit of a spam-magnet. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. As a list, the reader is referred to the article High-end audio which discusses the terminology. This is, after all, a commonly used term at the retail level. POV issues and sourcing can be fixed. JGHowes ^talk - 00:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. This list needs lots of cleanup, and it's not clear that anyone's interested in putting in that kind of work. Nevertheless, a cleaned-up verison of this list would clearly be worth keeping per WP:CLN, and since deletion is not a substitute for cleanup, I suppose that makes this worth keeping. Klausness (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, what makes equipment "high-end"? I doubt many manufacturers would describe their products as "low-end", for instance. The list inherently contains a POV, no matter what is to be done with it, and should be deleted for that reason. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:13, 27 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 G7 by Tiptoety (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. Blair - Speak to me 23:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magic Wands

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

Non-notable band. Article is autiobiographical and appears to be written by the band themselves. CyberGhostface (talk) 23:04, 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 02:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spying on the United Nations

Spying on the United Nations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is undersourced for the claims it makes.

• This article makes numerous unsourced statments.
• The article name is POV in that it removes any question as to if the UN was spied on.
• The Andrew Wikkie comment is made by an unlinked person who is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. His context to the subject is unclear.
• The only source about the memo seems to counter the entire article. All other statements about the memo are unsourced
• Of the few Program reports made in the article all are unsourced in the reflist
• The final references about bugs but do not note any context as to what or who was bugged. Where the bugs active? Where the bugs placed by anyone else? Who at the UN knew about the bugs and when? --Lemmey (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Lemmey (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, essay and WP:SOAP. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep; it's not a very good article, but that's not a deletion reason. There has been spies in the UN; it's Wikipedia's job to write an article on that based on the available sources. This is a start to that article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The article has its problems but it is hardly unsalvageable. What is described above is a perfect Talk page discussion, but really contains no deletion rationale that I can see. Is there a project that could take responsibility for this? I do agree the title is wrong. For one thing, the UN has certainly and incontrovertibly been spied on since the beginning, but this is mere statecraft and the way things work. The title should be about this history (and it wasn't just the Cold War!). This was a specific scandal/revelation/controversy and should be titled appropriately, e.g. 2003 allegations of Security Council surveillance. --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. As, above the article has its problems but it is hardly unsalvageable. The whistle-blowing by GCHQ translator Katharine Gun about the U.S. NSA memo on UN bugging, the abandoned official secrets court case aginst her, combined with a former UK Cabinet Minister stating she had seen bugging transcripts is about as good evidence as it gets with spying allegations short of a full court case. Plenty of sources out there that could be referenced. Rwendland (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep & rename. And gut some of the unreferenced stuff while we're at it. But, on the whole, it appears to be a good beginning to an article. Pastordavid (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with everything else here. This article is a decent start on something. It needs some clean-up and probably a better name, but Keep and Rename should be the course of action.
• Keep and Rename per Dhartung. --JulesN Talk 06:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep, rename, and strong cleanup per all. Thinboy00 @525, i.e. 11:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Dhartung, others. Markovich292 05:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, the subject is significant and reliable sources are available to develop the article. JGHowes ^talk - 01:01, 26 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 12:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Calgary Jr. A Mountaineers

Calgary Jr. A Mountaineers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A lacrosse team with questionable notability. ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 22:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep team at the top level of junior lacrosse in Canada, and hosting the Minto Cup this year - a 108 year old competition.[3]. At worst, I'd suggest moving to Calgary Mountaineers and expanding the article to include the Sr. B and Jr. B teams, all of which appear to be part of the same overall organization. Resolute 23:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Comment "Junior" lacrosse? Is that adolescent lacrosse? Just wondering. ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 23:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I am not entirely certain on the age group involved specifically, but I believe it is similar to junior ice hockey, which is the age group of 16-20, with the majority of players being adult. I believe what you are thinking of is minor lacrosse, which is for younger age groups, and would be a better example of adolescent (or juvenile) lacrosse. The top levels of junior lacrosse feed into the top major leagues (the National Lacrosse League and Major League Lacrosse) as well as the top senior leagues (Ontario Lacrosse Association and Western Lacrosse Association), so teams at this level will have produced notable players. I am not as well versed on the history of this specific team, so could not produce an example off the top of my head. Resolute 23:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• The thing is, I nominated it due to questionable notability. A 16-20 year old lacrosse team? a) I don't think that a 16-20 year old team of anything is notable. ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 23:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I would then ask you to read the article on the Calgary Hitmen and tell me a 16-20 year old team of anything is not notable. Personally, I certainly believe the Mountaineers organization is notable. The Senior squad has won a national championship, and the Junior A squad is hosting one this year, and has played for it in the past. This is why I suggested a rename and expansion as a possibility. I've left a note at WP:LACROSSE to make that suggestion. Resolute 00:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as there's not indication of notability in the article. And since I don't think that being a team of 16-20 year olds is inherently notable, delete Bfigura ^(talk) 23:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment once again It isn't fair to compare junior teams between different sports. And anyway, just because a "seniors" team wins a championship doesn't mean that their "juniors" team is notable because of it. Notability#Not Inherited. ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 00:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You said that you didn't think any team of 16-20 year olds was notable, I showed one that is. ergo, that argument is a non-starter, would you not agree? As for the senior vs. junior team, my point is that they are parts of one organization. i.e., the opening sentence would be: "The Calgary Mountaineers are an organization in the Rocky Mountain Lacrosse League that hosts a senior and two junior teams..." Resolute 00:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • May I correct myself? I thought that the WHL was for an older age group. I change my mind, but that is about it. And, you should at least push for a merge with Calgary Mountaineers. ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 00:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
      • The WHL is the highest level of junior hockey, much as this is the highest level of junior lacrosse. There is no article on the senior team to merge to, at present, which is why I argued for a move and an expand in scope, if this article is decided not to be kept with its current scope. Resolute 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Top tier team, feeder system for National Lacrosse League, not all too different from Minor League Baseball. As well, the team competes for the Minto Cup... very notable. This team is comparable to what teams in the Canadian Hockey League are to ice hockey. DMighton (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Top level team which feeds into the Top level professional league. There are hundreds of equivalent articles in other sports that could easily be a precedent. I am not saying this should exist because they do I am just suggesting that its a pretty clear cut keep. -Djsasso (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Have you bothered looking at the page? There is barely anything. ♥Shapiros10WuzHere♥ 21:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • A need for expansion is not a reason for deletion. Though I will try to add something more to the article, or just be bold and make my suggested move soon... probably tomorrow. Resolute 21:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Meets the required notability guidelines for sports teams. Per WP:ATHLETE (can't find the one specifically for sports teams) Gary King (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, not sure that there's a notability criteria for junior sports team, but being in the top tier would indicate notability to me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:16, 27 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 G12 by Orangemike (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. Blair - Speak to me 00:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Basic Principles of Relations Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

The Basic Principles of Relations Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Either its a copyright violation or it should be moved to Wikisource. WP doesn't do full-text reproductions of treaties. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for hosting of primary sources. Nick Graves (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Copy vio, article links to the original page, which is identical sans wikification. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a G12 copyvio per NickPenguin. Tagged as such Bfigura ^(talk) 23:57, 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 - Nabla (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lolita pornography

Article has been tagged unreferenced since 2006. Google search found only one decent possible reference: [4]. The reference only makes passing mention of "lolita porn." And there is already an article "Lolita--term" in which Lolita porn is mentioned: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita_(term)]. I think mention of "Lolita porn" in "Lolita-term" is more than enough, and we do not need a whole article on this. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge. I agree. The porn topic is pretty closely tied in with the base term. I don't see a need for a separate article. It's also an unlikely search term as someone looking for information on this topic would either go straight to lolita or the child p. article. 23skidoo (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Sourceless, original research. The verifiable information here is not of sufficient volume to justify an article separate from the term Lolita. Nick Graves (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect as likely search term. Nominator probably should have brought this up on the talk page if it already wasn't; as a likely search term for Lolita/child porn, it should redirect there and merge any good content. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment No one has ever posted anything on the talkpage of this article; it is completely empty.-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, neologism. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per KleenupKrew. Edison (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - seems like original research to me. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete original research, neogloism. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Celarnor...I see no reason to delete a possible search term and some content may be salvageable. Markovich292 05:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced character of article indicates original research. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails all three: WP:OR, WP:N, WP:V. There are no references on the page not because none have been added, but because none can be found. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:35, 26 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 02:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Janet Rehnquist

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

Article is about a living person, makes controversial claims and is entirely unsourced. Recommend Quick Deletion as per Jimbo Wales guidelines on such matters. Lemmey (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Subject is obviously notable. The first item listed in a Google search for her name yielded an article in a reliable source, and there are plenty more besides. I blanked potential BLP violations and added one reference. This is a viable subject, and the article can now be built properly from the ground up. Nick Graves (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Question: how notable is being a former Inspector-General of HHS? We don't seem to have articles on any other such people (e.g. the HHS site says the current IG is Daniel Levinson, but the Wikipedia article is about a deceased psychologist) and as a New Zealander, I am unsure about the importance of the position. Blair - Speak to me 23:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A Google News archive search [5] produces several hundred article in reliable sources with substantial coverage, easily satisfying WP:BIO. Certainly the article should be kept free of any WP:BLP violations. Edison (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep - The article is incomplete and would've been ripe for deletion had it not been for a vigorous defense stated here. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Inspectors general are not normally notable, but Rehnquist became notable because of the way she did her job. Rolling Stone wrote, "No one epitomizes the� politicization of Bush's inspectors general more than Janet Rehnquist. The chief justice's daughter, who served as a former White House counsel to Bush's father, was named IG of the Department of Health and Human Services in 2001. She quickly eviscerated her own investigative staff, lightened penalties for fraudulent Medicare contractors and doled out political favors to the Bush clan. In 2002, in direct response to a request by Jeb Bush's chief of staff in Florida, Rehnquist postponed an embarrassing audit of the state's pension system until after Jeb's re-election." None of this is in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Then put it in the article, please! As it stands, there is no notability! Ecoleetage (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• If and when I get a chance. Putting it in the article is not a requirement for passing AFD, and I have other priorities at this moment. It is often my hope that someone else will pick up a baton. --Dhartung | Talk 08:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• CommentTry reading WP:N There actually is notability demonstrated by the references identified here. The argument that there is "no notability" because the readily accessible refs Dhartung and I have identified have not been added to the article yet is invalid. The refs are there and clearly satisfy WP:N and WP:BIO, which do not require that they must have been added to the article. An imperfect and incomplete article is a candidate for editing, not for deletion. Others can add the references. This AFD will always be accessible on the talk page and will provide a source of material to improve and expand the article. WP:N says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." It does not say that the article must include those references to survive AFD. Edison (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I beg to differ. The references (all three of them) do not strike me as "significant." And the article itself is, as it stands today, a single sentence that identifies the lady in question simply through the title of a former job and for being the child of a famous parent. Again, please rewrite the article to meet Wikipedia standards or allow it to be brushed away. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I added three reliable sources and a bit of the section on the controversy. It had only a single sentence because it had been scrubbed of lengthy material about the controversy surrounding her tenure, the investigation by congress, and her resignation, which are now documented in references from the Associated Press (reported by CBS) and by a CBS story available online. Many other reliable sources have substantial coverage of the topic but are behind paywall so someone will have to visit a library to get the full text. Your dismissal of such references as the Washington Post, CBS, or the Associated Press is way out of the mainstream of Wikipedia's evaluation of sources. There is no "brushing away" of sourced articles you do not like. Edison (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In response. For anyone who is genuinely serious about this subject, I will direct your attention to this easily accessible web site [6] and its significant details on Ms. Rehnquist’s career – details that appear nowhere in the Wikipedia article. It also seems that she running her own legal/lobbying/consulting group in Washington, which this Wikipedia article does not mention. Nor does it mention that she was previously co-chair of the Washington health care practice for Venable LLP, one of America’s most prominent law firms. Ms. Rehnquist is clearly a notable and important figure, but you wouldn’t know it by reading this site’s article. Perhaps the supporters of this article will offer serious academic research and writing that gives the subject her proper due? Ecoleetage (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that you agree that the subject is notable, perhaps you woul consider changing your recommendation from "delete" to "keep." As for the article's incompleteness, that is not a criterion for deletion. You are free to expand and improve the article using the reliable sources that have been found. Nick Graves (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• No prob, Nick - vote switched. But I'll leave the rewrite to a better writer than me! Ecoleetage (talk) 01 : 15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Just an FYI. Particularly on AFDs but generally in Talk pages, it's considered appropriate to strike out a previous vote or statement using <s>...</s>, so as not to make replies look like non sequiturs. AFDs can also be vandalized, so making a change to your own text clearer is an aid to identifying inappropriate changes. --Dhartung | Talk 08:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, Dhartung, thanks. I am relatively new to all of this and a lot of the protocol hasn't quite been absorbed. I appreciate your patience. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as above. I'm sure that if Jimbo Wales actually reviewed this he would support the inclusion of an article about this person. Let us not invoke WP:JIMBOSAID unless he actually said it, shall we? Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The above comments have satisfied me as to the notability of the subject. Blair - Speak to me 23:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I added back some of the deleted material with refs, just to make the case for notability, but would a better writer please add general info about her career to keep the article NPOV so the controversy is not all there is. The controversy is what makes her more notable than the average office holder with a comparable job, but once notability is shown a more complete picture should be there. Edison (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, but needs expansion. Markovich292 05:26, 25 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 - Nabla (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maya Bond (actress)

Maya Bond (actress) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a unnotable actress that only played a small role in one film. Looking at the film's Wiki page, she isn't even mentioned in it. Tavix (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO1E. The given IMDb reference shows that the subject is only known for one film. A Google search also seems to confirm this. Paradoxsociety (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 23:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No verifiable evidence of independant notability. Pastordavid (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable. Appeared in one film (so IMDb says), and that was seven years ago! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable actress. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable based on the information offered here. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Markovich292 05:29, 25 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 - Nabla (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rackonomics

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

Non-notable neologism. Nakon 21:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also verges on spam, from the tone; note that the author is an SPA. Anturiaethwr 21:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anturiaethwr (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Only one unique Google hit, which appears to be a press release from the company. No reliable third party coverage evident. Nick Graves (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Neologism. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of sources and above reasons. Paradoxsociety (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom/WP:NEO. Staeiou (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no reliable sources, created by a SPA, i'm pretty sure this is spam. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising Ziggy Sawdust 15:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom as this looks to be a neologism without reliable sources to back it up. Bfigura ^(talk) 16:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Neologistic spam. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per above, WP:SPAM Gary King (talk) 19:20, 24 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. Despite claims to the contrary, no reliable, third party sources to prove notability were brought to the discussion.Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James J. Flaherty

James J. Flaherty (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to James J. Flaherty. Was speedied under WP:CSD#G11. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Author of a notable book. I added two different reviews of the book. --Eastmain (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither meet the requirements of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. One is written by the subject (James Flaherty) himself. --Hu12 (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Article is almost entirely original research, subject does not appear to fulfill any of the notability requirements for creative professionals. Nick Graves (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. In the coaching field, James Flaherty is a notable figure. He founded one of the first schools about twenty years ago. His inclusion into wikipedia is not intented to be self-promotion, but instead educating those who want to learn about the growing field of coaching. He studied under Fernando Flores and is a peer of Julio Olalla who both have articles. He is also coming out with a second book this year called "Integral Coaching." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubbgainer (talk • contribs) 22:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC) — Dubbgainer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment: Well, prove it. Find independent, reliable sources that confirm that Flaherty is notable in the coaching field, then cite them in the article. Nick Graves (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay. Is Amazon editorial reviews considered an indepent, reliable source too? There are independent reviews made by individuals such as Peter Senge on the sales page of Amazon. Dubbgainer (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not an act of self-promotion on the part of the Flaherty's. Yes, I'm a student with the school, but I am try to only add things that are factual. Please read the editorial reviews on Amazon, you will get a sense for what the general opinion is of James in the OFFLINE world in coaching. How can we incorporate the Amazon reviews onto this page? Dubbgainer (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Amazon blurb doesn't do it for me. Although original research may not be grounds for deletion, lack of notability is, and until you demonstrate that, you will have an uphill battle. Read WP:BIO carefully to understand the kind of notability evidence that people here expect. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• • How is that people like Julio Olalla have articles then when that pages has zero references? Dubbgainer (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS--Hu12 (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and remove the promotional part. His principal book is in 1003 libraries according to Worldcat, which makes it a very prominent publication in the field. i find it hard to judge notability of careers like this without something objective like this to go by--otherwise I would have said differently. DGG (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • While WorldCat is a useful tool to find books and sources, its not an indicator of WP:NOTABILITY nor does it pass WP:BIO for a stand alone article.--Hu12 (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I find myself in agreement with Hu12. I don't see how a raw number of libraries carrying his book translates into notability, nor how it is an objective measurement. What's the threshold? What are you comparing this number to? More importantly, how does this tie in with the relevant notability guideline? Nick Graves (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Notable, to be certain, although the article could use better referencing. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: What is your basis for judging this person notable? Nick Graves (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Hi Admins. Today, I'm more collected. I apologize for the way I might have communicated yesterday, I was just frustrated and am new to this process. I appreciate your taking the time to review this stuff and am surprised how many reviewers there are to be honest. I've taken a look at some of the pages you cited and would like to cite one myself as we continue this discussion. WP:GOODFAITH I could see how this article is one-sided in that the statements are all just positive. I will take steps this week to clean up the content and add elements that might be from a critic's point of view. The new intention will be to provide an honest, multi-perspective view on his life. That said, I am also trying to read through the topic of notability. I took a look at what Wikipedia defines as "reliable sources" and two notable realms of knowledge seem to be scholarly (academic) work or news organizations. Honestly, these are two areas in which the school has not placed emphasis on getting feedback from. I'm actually a part of the scholarly community (doing a Master's in Organizational Psychology) and the field of coaching is heavy practiced in business by psychologists and sociologists, but the irony is that there isn't much research around it yet. My opinion is that James's work on coaching draws much from philosophy and Eastern studies, and has yet to be accepted into the mainstream Western world. As a creative professional, to me, he seems to be on the border of qualification. In the realm of coaching in the past 20 years, he has left a decent-sized footprint and he is well-positioned for more quicker growth. His book has been popular on Amazon ever since it was published in 1998. Sure, he doesn't have a profuse number of reviewers of his book, but there are some heavy-hitting individuals in academia who think highly of his work such as Peter Senge from MIT and Jerry_I._Porras from Stanford. He has recurring partnerships with big-players in non-traditional studies such as Wendy Palmer of Conscious Embodiment and Ruso-Hudson from the Enneagram Institute. The new concept he is sheparding is called Integral Coaching and a second book should be coming out this year. This approach has been applied to executives in many companies such as HP, Intel, Ford, Boeing, Genentech, Cisco, etc with what they would describe to be "successful" results. The focus of this methodology has to do with quality, where ideographic (or qualitative self-reports) weigh more significantly. This school is not a coaching school factory like the big-name school CTI. But it still has produced over 1,000 trained coaches over CTI's 8,000 trained professionals. James has trained several new teachers of this Integral Methodology and each have some high-regards themselves such as Sarita Chawla (http://demetermatrix.com/who.html) and Craig O'Flaherty who is running the Centre for Coaching in South Africa. But I could see what you guys are looking for in an encyclopedia. Perhaps for history to unfold first, then document it. With this fuller picture, do you guys feel like James has led notable progress thus far? If so, how can we validate what I wrote about or cite qualitative responses? If not, are the major areas you see as gaps? Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubbgainer (talk • contribs) 17:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem much closer to this subject than just a student with the school. Please be aware of the following;

• Conflict of interest
  • Editors who have a conflict of interest
  • Accounts used for promotion
• What Wikipedia is not
  • Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising
  • 'Role' accounts
• Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Nick Graves. Markovich292 05:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Desipte the fact that it's rather well-written, I do not believe that having a book reviewed in a couple of mid-level publications automatically confers notability on the author. The book may be notable, but I don't think that Mr Flaherty is. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:19, 27 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 - Nabla (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Petar Stojkovik

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

Delete and possibly salt Non-notable actor. Article has been deleted twice now for notability reasons, but the creator of the article, who is presumably the subject, has recreated both times. Also, google searches for "Petar Stojkovik" Macedonia and "Petar Stojkovik" actor all show minimal sources.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have made a post on the talk page of the Republic of Macedonia wikiproject about this AFD. Blair - Speak to me 22:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. For me, this article fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers. The lack of English language references certainly hinders its case, although if it could be proved to me he is notable in Macedonia I would not be against changing my opinion. Blair - Speak to me 22:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and salt as recreation of twice-deleted article. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• KILL WITH FIRE twice-deleted, unsourced Ziggy Sawdust 15:43, 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 (non-admin closure) The consensus below is that the deputy mayor of Delhi is inherently notable despite WP:BIO1E concerns. Darkspots (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Surinder Singh Bajwa

Surinder Singh Bajwa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Not notable. He is listed here solely for the unusual single incident that precipitated his death, not for any notable contributions to Indian politics or legislative policy. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. A position such as deputy mayor of a large city like Delhi (more people than some states or provinces) probably indicates notability. --Eastmain (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• comment deputy mayor of Delhi. I dont know the local political structure, so I can not say if the office is notable--some places it might be, others not. If it is, hen information about other aspects of his career can be added. DGG (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment As I learned to my chagrin (by nominating one, only to be accused of anti-Indian bias), Indian cities are managed by civil servants (municipal commissioners) via a federalized meritocratic system. Mayors and councillors seem to have non-trivial political influence, but they are nothing like the strong mayor system in some Western cities. Some US cities have a council-manager form of government with a ceremonial mayor who may also preside over the council, and I think this is the closest analog. I'm even less sure where a deputy mayor falls in this context, but it may be close to the vice presidency of a city council. Anyway, for cryin' out loud, the least we can do is put his death in context. Monkeys are a serious pest in Indian cities. --Dhartung | Talk 21:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Dhartung's comment about the deputy mayor. If that is indeed a true statement, the guy really doesn't have that much notability. Tavix (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep His position in a city of the size and significance of Delhi makes him notable, as far as I can tell - this position seems to clearly be high profile, if not as high profile as the mayor of New York, London etc. There are multiple, non-monkey related, sources available with just a quick Google search for "SS Bajwa", including this one which mentions that he was the Delhi senior vice-president of the Bharatiya Janata Party also. I am not particularly knowledgable about Indian politics, and I would certainly not accuse anybody of bad faith here, but I think that there is a risk of systematic bias here. TigerShark (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I do also note that the current mayor (Arti Mehra) does not have any article, and would suggest that one should be created. TigerShark (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would not haver the least doubt about the mayor of Delhi, but he was the deputy mayor. It isn't reasonable to assume its's anywhere near as important as the mayor. And of course we should have an article on the mayor. If you have sources available, justwriteityourself. DGG (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. High political office in a city of 12.8 million people ((22 million metro area) automatically makes this person notable. Even if the position is largely symbolic (which I do not know), this person is still sufficiently notable to have an article. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'm more confused than ever. It was a problem for me the last time that we didn't have an article on the municipal commissioner position in India, and we still don't. Municipal Corporation of Delhi is a well-nigh hopeless cut-and-paste job. I did determine that the MCD governs about 13 or 14 million of the people in the capital territory (which has its own state-like government, while New Delhi has its own municipal council as well!). Bajwa was Deputy Mayor to Arit Mehra, whom TigerShark identified. The Mayor and Deputy Mayor are both indirectly elected by the councillors (vote totals). According to the NPO City Mayors, The Mayor generally lacks executive authority. This is due to the British roots of the system that remain from the time when the administrator was the representative of the colonial power, not to the fact that it operates under a council-manager system The Deputy Mayor has no powers except to act in the Mayor's absence. (On the other hand ... 13 million people.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I know there's an essay that says we shouldn't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument but I think it's a perfectly good argument here. If we have any intention of being taken seriously as an encyclopedia then how can we keep articles on bands that have singles that scrape into the charts and footballers who play one match in League 2 but not a deputy mayor of Delhi? This is just the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia a laughing stock in some quarters Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep (I didn't want to vote, see above, but if it will help a consensus form I will). I'll revise the article to clarify his role as a ward councillor representing ~49,000 people. --Dhartung | Talk 19:37, 24 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 userfied by author. Veinor (talk · contribs) has deleted the remaining redirect. Non-admin closure. Blair - Speak to me 23:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jamiecg74

Jamiecg74 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No real sources given; only potential source of notability appears to be one newspaper article. Fails the notability criteria. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have appeared on Sky News, and BBC news regarding the selling of the Tesco Carrier bag. Surely the fact that I was in a national newspaper (The Daily Mail) would substantiate that the page could be kept?? The picture that I uploaded on the page is genuine. Can I have a specific reason why i cannot keep the page, and what i can do to ensure that I can keep it? - Jamiecg74 21/4/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiecg74 (talk • contribs)

• Please read WP:BIO, the guideline for biographical articles. I can't guarantee that your page will be kept, but it can at least be userfied (see WP:USERFY). I would also suggest that you read our policies on conflict of interest (WP:COI), as it's usually considered bad form to write an article about yourself. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - The problem is that not all references that people get in newspapers is equal. The eBay sale may have received national coverage, but it doesn't necessarily qualify you for notability. People generally don't come notable (according to the Wikipedia definition) after just one mention in a newspaper; it requires multiple, independent reliable sources.

On a somewhat related note, the anecdote about Whizzer and Chips doesn't really add anything to the article. It may have meant a lot to you at the time, but it's pretty much the sort of thing you'd tell your friends, not the sort of thing you'd put in an encyclopedia. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing found in Google News Archive searches using various terms ("jamiecg74", "jamie.green youtube", "jamie.green mash.up"). Fails WP:BIO. Not even really marginal, but if it were, COI would tip it for me. --Dhartung | Talk 21:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete As I read the Guardian article, it calls the subject a "potential new star" and regrets that not enough people visit the site. So for once we actually have proof from a RS that the subject is not notable.21:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This content would just be better off (in a substatially edited form) as a User page. Howie ☎ 22:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable advert. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Author has userfied it. I have tagged the remaining redirect for speedy as R2. Blair - Speak to me 23:16, 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 - Nabla (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph W. Burrus

Joseph W. Burrus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Not notable, except for the single event freak accident death. Mr. Burrus was not a professional magician; he was an amateur entertainer performing his first (and last) magic act. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLP1E. JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. A tragic death. The trick, see would be to be OUT of the coffin before it was lowered in the ground and buried.( Don't try this at home). Edison (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E as mentioned above. Markovich292 05:41, 25 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 - Nabla (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Three's Christmas

Three's Christmas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsalvageably incoherent plot summary of non-notable single TV episode. No other Three's Company episodes have articles Dawn Bard (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. JohnCD (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tavix (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:27, 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 speedily deleted by Pedro (talk · contribs) as G12. Non-admin closure. Blair - Speak to me 23:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nellie stoe johnson

Nellie stoe johnson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cruft Ziggy Sawdust 20:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm confused. Did you revert your own edit to mark the page for deletion? -- Swerdnaneb 20:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Ambivalent AfD is not for cleanup. This page needs an overhaul. It might be easier to delete it and start over. The subject easily meets the notability requirements. obit school NPR. -- Swerdnaneb 20:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly notable, given the references. Tag for hella cleanup. Argument for deletion seems to be WP:CRUFTCRUFT. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy G12? I would bet my bottom dollar that this is a copyvio from the original author's book. I have tagged a similar page over here. The only reason I haven't tagged this one is that there doesn't appear to be a "sample page" that I can point to. And I'm not spending the money to buy the book from the press. There are some big issues with WP:COI here. Anyone else? -- Swerdnaneb 20:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Found it! Tagged. -- Swerdnaneb 20:52, 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 12:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of UK railfan jargon

List of UK railfan jargon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Trivia, violates several points of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (especially the points about it not being a dictionary, manual, and an indiscriminate collection of information. This is not the place for what claims to be a bloody list of jargon for anroak train spotters! Things such of this have no reason for even existing on Wikipedia since they are a barmy list of slang. This is not the forum for lists of slang and jargon. It should be expunged. Bolly Nickers (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Note see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. railfan jargon Gwernol 20:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjects notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways, Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains. Slambo (Speak) 10:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep the article is generally properly sourced. It is not trivia. The article has been kept twice before at AfD and has been improved since then. The nominating editor's bias is shown by the use of schoolyard taunts and personal attacks the he feels are necessary when stating his case. Gwernol 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete This is exactly the kind of thing that should not be on Wikipedia. There is no need for any sort of slang list of any kind. This no doubt will have all the foamers defending it to the hilt. --Timmins Dave 08 (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please don't insult other editors. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Fairly well-sourced and discriminate list. Seems to be a bad faith nom. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• keep - the terms listed are also used in the rail industry and not just by railfans. Every entry in the list has at least one footnote pointing to a reliable source and terms are now vetted for accuracy and verifiability before they are included in this list. Slambo (Speak) 20:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - contributing editors have gone out of their way to source independent references for the terms listed in the article, many of which are widely used in railway periodicals and other publications. As previously mentioned, unsourced entries have been removed. At the time of the previous AfD the list was still largely unreferenced. EdJogg (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as a well-sourced, well-defined list. And agree with 10lbHammer that the nominator severely needs to moderate himself. The languge used is neither necessary nor appropriate. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, well sourced, encyclopedic, and objectively defined material KleenupKrew (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Sourced and encyclopedic. The nominator is cautioned against ill-founded nominations. Edison (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Whilst the article at the beginning of the year was quite poor, with the majority of entries unreferenced, a lot of editors put in a lot of work to provide verifiable references for entries that have been kept. Unreferenced entries have been moved to a sub-page so that they can be restored when a verifiable reference can be found. Note that the nominator has not notified any editor of the proposed deletion either. Mjroots (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I agree with Mjroots - if this nomination had come at the beginning of the year I would have supported it as it was a complete mess, comprising of a few good facts mixed with original research, things made up and general fancruft. However, some determined editors have cleaned up this list to the state it is now, and whilst not perfect it is well referenced, and in a state to be used by non-enthusiasts to expolain terms that they may not be familiar with. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 07:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This article should be kept as it has been extensively overhauled recently by editors who have meticulously sourced references and removed the fannish references, unverifiable slang and plain nonsense (against some opposition). A few months ago i would be 100% behind removing it but now i believe it comes up to wikipedia standards as seen in many other articles. Cheers Deckchair (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete We found this article by hitting the "random article" button and were not suprised that this is something that someone feels should be deleted. This is a list of trivia and is not encyclopedic. Just because something is well sourced does not mean that it is a list of trivia and/or pure fancruft. The slang or jargon terms can be mentioned on the respective pages, provided they are encyclopedic worthy enough to have their own page. This may be an ill-founded nomination created out of spite, but it should be overlooked since this is something that does violate several of the What Wikipedia is not tenets. --Souvigny (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Nomination based on a misinterpretation of WP:NOT. Yes, slang does belong on Wikipedia, as long as it is sourced.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 16:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT says "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide." This article is a usage or jargon guide, therefore it should be deleted. Case closed. --Kitsap Beach (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  Portal:Contents/List of glossaries, which links to a number of other similar articles, is an index to information on Wikipedia. Glossaries of this type are encyclopedic as entry points to further information. Slambo (Speak) 17:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Lists#Types of lists. This article is a glossary; it is a "page [that] presents definitions for specialized terms in a subject area." Slambo (Speak) 18:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Note Kitsap Beach is a suspected sockpuppet of Bolly Nickers, the nominator for the deletion of the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, for all of the "keep" reasons expressed above by others. —BMRR (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but rename "List of UK railroad jargon." I think that the nominator has gotten confused about the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide" policy, which I think was (in spirit, at least) designed to prevent articles on single terms. This article is so well-sourced that it demonstrates that railroad jargon itself is notable. Would the nominator want to muck this article on Glossary of poker terms? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Note - we don't have railroads in the UK! <g> Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It has already been mooted that a revised name might be appropriate for this series of articles: something along the lines of "Glossary of UK rail-related terminology", which avoids the troublesome terms 'railfan' and 'jargon'. This does assume, of course, that the result of the AfD is 'Keep'. Further discussion regarding suggested names should take place at Talk:List of U.S. railfan jargon#Name change, rather than this AfD page. EdJogg (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Obviously I'm in the minority here, but I'm still going to express my feelings on the matter. I agree with Kitsap Beach and feel that these sort of jargon guides do not belong in encyclopedias. Does Microsoft Encarta or Encyclopaedia Brittanica include any such guides? I'm rather curious. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You make a valid point, but Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there are many thousands of articles found in Wikipedia that would not be found in Britannica. —BMRR (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep for all the "keep" reasons stated above. Don't tell me that lists like this aren't encyclopedic. ----DanTD (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Well sourced, interesting list. As noted, I wouldn't object to seeing the article moved to a name which sidestepped the word "jargon". We have articles on lists of Internet memes and I think this list is similarly appropriate. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete List of trivia and jargon. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Well referenced, and by the sounds of the nom it is done as a hate thign against us railfans. In the event of deletion a copy will be railfan_jargon here for everyone's delectation! BG7 16:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, adequately sourced, and the rather venomous language in the nom ("This is not the place for what claims to be a bloody list of jargon for anroak train spotters!") was completely unnecessary. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:20, 27 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 12:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of U.S. railfan jargon

Trivia, violates several points of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (especially the points about it not being a dictionary, manual, and an indiscriminate collection of information. This is not the place for what claims to be a bloody list of jargon for anroak train spotters! Things such of this have no reason for even existing on Wikipedia since they are a barmy list of slang. This is not the forum for lists of slang and jargon. It should be expunged. Bolly Nickers (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Note This is the 2nd nomination of this article. Mjroots (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Note see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UK railfan jargon (3rd nomination) Gwernol 20:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjects notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways, Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains. Slambo (Speak) 10:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep the article is generally properly sourced. It is not trivia. The article has been kept once before at AfD and has been improved since then. The nominating editor's bias is shown by the use of schoolyard taunts and personal attacks the he feels are necessary when stating his case. Gwernol 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Further, this article is not a manual - it doesn't tell anyone how to do anything - nor is it a dictionary entry - it doesn't define the term "list of US railfan jargon" - nor is it an indiscriminate list of information - the sources are used to define what is included and there are well-defined criteria for inclusion. There is no policy basis for this nomination. Gwernol 20:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Article generally is referenced, and verification issues can be addressed as was done with List of UK railfan jargon, bad fa—ith nomination. Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep IMHO, this is a bad-faith nom. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete This is exactly the kind of thing that should not be on Wikipedia. There is no need for any sort of slang list of any kind. This no doubt will have all the foamers defending it to the hilt. --Timmins Dave 08 (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to insult other editors with derogatory terms like "foamers". Please keep your arguments civil and base your rationale on policy rather than your personal animosities. Thanks, Gwernol 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Fairly well-sourced and discriminate list. Seems to be a bad faith nom. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Even though the page title is "List of U.S. railfan jargon", a large portion of the terms used in this list are used in the rail industry press. The references list at the end of the article includes Trains Magazine (which regularly features stories and advertisements intended for rail industry professionals), GE Transportation Systems (note 58 refers to [7] at GE's website), Railway Life (the official employee journal of the former Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburgh Railroad), Bridge Engineering (published by John Wiley and Sons), National Railway Equipment Company (note 57 refers to [8] at NREC's website) as well as the lexicographer's journal American Speech. There are numerous terms with references found dating back as far as 1916, and with an even more thorough search, I could probably find a large number of other reliable sources for these and many more terms. Slambo (Speak) 20:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as a well-sourced, well-defined list. I'd also suggest that the nominator consider moderating his tone in future noms: there's no need for uncivil language. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, well sourced, encyclopedic, and objectively defined material KleenupKrew (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Sourced and encyclopedic. The nominator is cautioned against additional bad-faith nominations, which this and the UK one appear to be. Edison (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, for all of the "keep" reasons expressed above by others. I would also add that the majority of these terms are used by professional railroaders as well as railroad enthusiasts. —BMRR (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Article generally well sourced, any unsourced entries can be dealt with as per List of UK railfan jargon, bad faith nomination. Mjroots (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Well sourced article and researched. Bad faith nomination Dex1337 (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete We found the List of UK railfan jargon article by hitting the "random article" button and were not suprised that this is something that someone feels should be deleted and we also found that the American version is also up for deletion. both are lists of trivia and are not encyclopedic. Just because something is well sourced does not mean that it is a list of trivia and/or pure fancruft. The slang or jargon terms can be mentioned on the respective pages, provided they are encyclopedic worthy enough to have their own page. This may be an ill-founded nomination created out of spite, but it should be overlooked since this is something that does violate several of the What Wikipedia is not tenets. --Souvigny (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Just because terms are used by railfans doesn't mean that they aren't used in the rail industry. The professional railroaders I know personally use the same terms in their work environments on a daily basis. Slambo (Speak) 15:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if that is that case, then if the term is important enough, it should be listed in the article about the subject. This list and the other are prime examples of What Wikipedia is not! --76.160.223.252 (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just it. I've heard all of them used by professional railroaders, and they are listed on the individual articles (just to pick a few at random, see ALCO RSD-15 for Alligator, Flashing rear-end device for FRED, and BNSF Railway for pumpkin for example). Glossaries on Wikipedia have long-standing and wide ranging precedents in a large number of specialization areas; see Category:Glossaries for a number of other examples of this type of article. As this article's content relates only to terms that are used when discussing the rail transport industry in the United States, it is not an indiscriminate list. Slambo (Speak) 17:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking at the guidelines and I honestly don't see how this list violates any of them. Maybe I'm missing something...? —BMRR (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOT says "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide." This article is a usage or jargon guide, therefore it should be deleted. Case closed. --Kitsap Beach (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But it also says, "Descriptive articles about languages, dialects or types of slang ... are desirable." (Emphasis added.) The editor who nominated this article for deletion specifically used slang as a reason why the article should be deleted, which would seem to contradict Wikipedia's guidelines on the subject. —BMRR (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Contents/List of glossaries, which links to a number of other similar articles, is an index to information on Wikipedia. Glossaries of this type are encyclopedic as entry points to further information. Slambo (Speak) 17:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Lists#Types of lists. This article is a glossary; it is a "page [that] presents definitions for specialized terms in a subject area." Slambo (Speak) 18:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Note Kitsap Beach is a suspected sockpuppet of the Nominator for deletion of the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but rename "List of US railroad jargon." I think that the nominator has gotten confused about the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage or jargon guide" policy, which I think was (in spirit, at least) designed to prevent articles on single terms. This article is so well-sourced that it demonstrates that railroad jargon itself is notable. Would the nominator want this article on Diner lingo 86ed? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It has already been mooted that a revised name might be appropriate for this series of articles: something along the lines of "Glossary of North American rail-related terminology", which avoids the troublesome terms 'railfan' and 'jargon'. This does assume, of course, that the result of the AfD is 'Keep'. Further discussion regarding suggested names should take place at Talk:List of U.S. railfan jargon#Name change, rather than this AfD page. EdJogg (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep for the same reasons as List of UK railfan jargon. ----DanTD (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep this is vital information to spread around and Wikipedia is meant to be a wealth of knowledge. This would belong in an encyclopedia, thus it deserves to be in a Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.14.0 (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete List of trivia and jargon. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, well-sourced list. Unnecessary hostile language in the AfD nom doesn't help. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:21, 27 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. Pigman☿ 06:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Welch

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

Unreferenced - violates WP:BLP almost to the point of being an attack page. Removing unsourced accusations woule leave insufficient notability. dramatic (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —dramatic (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced, and in the meantime I have removed the BLP violations.-gadfium 21:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, well below WP:BIO even if there were sources. --Dhartung | Talk 22:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't show up on Google, which he would if he was a politician or skateboarder of any significance. --Helenalex (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no sources or assertion of notability. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Finally a WP:BLP argument in a deletion discussion that I can agree with. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:53, 23 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. Cbrown1023 talk 18:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eddie Paul

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

Notability is not established and the article is written more like a publicity release. Of the sources, one is subject's own company, and I doubt the US Patents in themselves confer notability. Author may have WP:COI because inserts references to the subject in other articles. At best, needs reliable third-party sources. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, there's actually quite a bit of coverage of his creations for movies as well as private clients. Google News Archive search Needs rewrite to sources and for tone.--Dhartung | Talk 22:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, promo/advertising and apparent vanity article. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep, edits will be made soon to comply with guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C6VETTE (talk • contribs) 19:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, the fact that the sourcing is coming primarily from pay-per-read sources usually sets off alarm bells in my head, but there's so much of it that I think Mr Paul may meet the "third-party coverage" notability requirement. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:23, 27 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 02:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Victoria Theatre (Halifax)

Victoria Theatre (Halifax) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Playhouse with no evidence of notability. Pastordavid (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I added some references to prove notability. --Eastmain (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The article has remained a one line stub for almost two years, since its creation, with multiple editors calling for Merge, Deletion and even a Speedy Delete, from me. What is mentioned in the article, other than the references Eastmain has just placed on the page, is already stated in the Halifax, West Yorkshire article. However the theatre has been taken over by the local Town council and come to the end of an extended period (2-3 years) of refurbishment. It was in its heyday a very popular entertainment venue and may again prove to be one, though at the moment it is not. If the article can be upgraded with a history of it, name changes etc, and images inside and out, possibly historical ones, then it would be worth keeping, rather than being reinstated at a later date. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Based on the rewrite of the article, I am switching my vote. Nice work!Ecoleetage (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep if expanded with reliable sources - as a 100+ year old theatre there must surely be some decent sources out there to expand this article. Provided the article gets the updates Richard Harvey suggests above, I'd be happy to see it reamin on here. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Halifax, West Yorkshire. Article can be re-created and expanded when more sources found.--Aervanath's signature is boring 18:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article already has three references from reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Three references in a local paper are enough to establish that the theater exists, the question is,is that enough to establish that it is notable? Pastordavid (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Mild observation Can I ask if any famous shows or performers appeared at the theater? That would be notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • information Current Theatre 'Run List' (edited from Oct 2007 - June 2008):- 28 Oct 2007 - Queen (band): 3 Nov 2007 - Lenny Henry: 26 Nov 2007 - Jimmy Carr: 29 Feb 2008 - John Gordillo/Geoff Norcott: 20 Apr 2008 - Jethro: 1 May 2008 - Dara Ó Briain: 3 May 2008 - Sean Lock: 6 May 2008 - Russian State Opera of Siberia. Engelbert Humperdinck (singer) performed there in December 2007 [9] Additionally Status Quo is scheduled to appear there in October 2008:- [10] and Paul Weller (singer) on 5 May 2008. *I have also found a reference to a notable event from 40 years ago, when a knife was thrown, from the crowd, at Little Richard whilst performing on stage there. See:- [11], which I feel makes the article sufficently notable to Keep. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment actually, if you read your source carefully you'll see that the knife wasn't thrown at Little Richard on stage at the Victoria Theatre, but that he performed there in 2005 ("Almost 40 years later, I find myself in another Yorkshire hall, watching Little Richard" - the "other Yorkshire hall" mentioned is the Victoria Theatre). I have rewritten the article to hopefully assert notabilty, and have provided references.-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Error noted :( it was a long day ) and the item is now struck through. Richard Harvey (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Extensive re-write by JediLofty now clearly establishes notability, well-sourcedness, etc. (Is "well-sourcedness" a word? Well, it is now.) Good job, JediLofty.--Aervanath's signature is boring 11:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as notable - but could do with some information on the actual building and more on the history - not much listed for 100 years!. MilborneOne (talk) 21:00, 24 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 under WP:CSD G11, advertising. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gospel on demand

Gospel on demand (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced advertising spam garbage Ziggy Sawdust 20:05, 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. There was unanimity that the article fails to meet WP:MUSIC. In addition it is wholly unsourced. TerriersFan (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bush Raps

Non-notable, unreferenced Ziggy Sawdust 20:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The Bots is a red link, and none of the other artists seem notable. Furthermore, I can't find any reliable third party sources for this album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable album by artists who don't pass WP:MUSIC. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no demonstration of nobility per WP:MUSIC - or WP:V - WP:RS. This borders on Speedy territory. B.Wind (talk) 05:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, a non-notable parody album that does not meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:24, 27 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 weak keep. Cbrown1023 talk 18:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jim P. Slaton

Jim P. Slaton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Failed recent CSD, I was advised by the declining editor to list it here to see if I could establish consensus for deletion. The article does not appear to assert notability and is badly written (although the latter is not actually a deletion criterion). George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 08:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep, he actually does have GNA coverage, but the article is in terrible shape. --Dhartung | Talk 09:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Can someone edit the Jim P. Slaton article for the editor? How does this article get fixed so it doesn't get deleted? I know Jim Slaton and he is an amazing dude! Let me know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.107.45 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep so it can get improved. He apparently has won enough prizes and been the subject of enough work to be notable. DGG (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, needs urgent cleanup, but there appears to be enough material in GNA as above to construct a decent article out of it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:26, 27 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 Keep (non-admin closure). Potential bad faith nomination. Give articles a chance before nominating them so soon after creation. WilliamH (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Burt

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

Unreferenced, non-notable Ziggy Sawdust 19:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ahem. There were two references in the article at the time you nominated this, one of them a New York Times profile. Please look at articles more carefully before rushing to the AfD button -- your hastiness causes other editors more work than is necessary. Oh, and for the record, keep: clearly meets WP:BIO, even in the stubby state it's in. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep It was stubbed with two references for notability in two areas (crime and pro-life). He's related to a number of organizations and individuals. --DHeyward (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but clean up. It isn't really unreferenced, as Quasi points out, and the NYT profile gives plenty of evidence of his longterm anti-abortion activism even apart from his connection to Griffin. (And a quick Google bears this out as well.) It's in poor shape, but it isn't really a deletion candidate. --Dhartung | Talk 22:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the cleanup.
• Keep I don't see a problem here. Jpmonroe (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It would be nice if we could add more biographical information here (such as birthdates, places, etc), but the article appears to be well-sourced. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment It was put up for deletion less than a minute after creation. I don't know why Ziggy is so quick to nom. I doubt he had time to read it or check the sources. He was blocked right after a number of noms for misuse of twickle. Anyone want to speedy this as a badd faith nom? --DHeyward (talk) 03:48, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 18:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WWCG-LP

WWCG-LP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn Ziggy Sawdust 19:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. Anturiaethwr 20:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anturiaethwr (talk • contribs) Oh, come on, SineBot! Anturiaethwr 20:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Undecided, but edging to keep The article is in poor shape, but the station is apparently a licensed station[12]. Regular FCC-licensed stations are inherently notable, but what are the standards for low power stations? DarkAudit (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Put up the Columbus TV template and a TVQ link, along with a link to the network the station is affiliated with to edge it within notability. We can begin to at least get an infobox in there. Nate • (chatter) 21:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment For a low power station, I do not feel that there is automatic or inherent notability. They are less notable, in general, than regular broadcast stations. They should have substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources to satisfy WP:N. Does this one? Edison (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep FCC licensed station to serve the public, passes the N test for me. If digital subchannels, HD simulcasts of cable channels and TBN translators have their own articles, a start up low power can too. Mr mark taylor (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- they are as notable as any other station, especially if they provide their own programming. -- azumanga (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, but redirect -- The station is brand-new, so it has not had time to establish notability. A guideline for media notability suggests inherent notability for full-service stations, but requires more sourcing for low-power stations, especially those that do not originate programming. This station does not originate programming. It does, however, broadcast the full network schedule from White Springs Television, and so, rather than deleting the article, I recommend that it be changed to a redirect to the network. That way, if the station should establish independent notability, the article history is preserved and can be recalled. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:39, 23 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 near-unanimity of responses and obvious invalidity of dissenting opinion (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 02:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vincent Da Sylva

Vincent Da Sylva (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, unreferenced. Kill with fire. Ziggy Sawdust 19:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Unreferenced is not a reason to delete -- it's a reason to see if references can be found. Given he's a pro player, sources are readily found to show he passes WP:ATHLETE. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep He has a profile at Eurobasket.com and appears to have represented Senegal internationally [13]. I'm not finding much else about him, but that's not surprising for a player like this. For the record, I don't subscribe to Eurobasket, and I doubt anyone here does, so I don't know what lies behind the paywall. Zagalejo^^^ 22:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Jpmonroe (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Just playing professional basketball in France doesn't make you notable. He is about as notable as a backup quarterback in the Arena football league. The article doesn't contain any information about him anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blahblah5555 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• According to WP:ATHLETE, playing in a fully professional league, any league, does make you notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, professional basketball in France confers notability. And the fact that the article is incomplete is unfortunate, but not a deletion reason. matt91486 (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - by the letter notability as both a professional basketball player for Avignon in France and a Senegalese international basketball player. matt91486 (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly meets notability requirement for athletes. Edward321 (talk) 02:11, 23 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. Cbrown1023 talk 18:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caledonia Consulting

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

Non-notable. Ziggy Sawdust 19:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

this lobby firm is notable for its connections with a Scottish Parliament supported charitable venture; because it has employed former MSPs including a disgraced member of the House of Lords; because the organisation it is connected with was investigated by the Scottish Parliament and because it also includes a former Pfizer lobbyist also associated with the 'non lobbying' SPBE. This has been a matter of political controversy in scotland and has featured in the press regulatrly. I will add some more sources.

--Davidmillerglasgow (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:COATRACK article for attacks on two of this firm's lobbyists. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable company, with references from reliable sources. --Eastmain (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Umm, probably merge to Scottish Parliament Business Exchange as that appears to be the source of the notability/notoriety. Mind you that one is a borderline attack page too. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Well-referenced article, not deserving of deletion. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, thinly disguised attack piece, but I think a neutral article could be written on the subject. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:30, 27 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. Cbrown1023 talk 18:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Astreal

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

Clearly non-notable band Ziggy Sawdust 19:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• speedy delete under CSD#A7. So tagged. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not at all clear: an album with Pony Canyon and another with EMI makes them clearly pass WP:MUSIC C5. Keep and next time, READ the article and relevant guidelines. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Quasirandom. Satisfies WP:MUSIC. Nsk92 (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up - Singapore band with two albums on a major label passes WP:MUSIC, but this article is in dire need of restructuring, additional citations (no RS are present in the current version of the articles), additional linking from other articles, and an infobox. B.Wind (talk) 06:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, would appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:31, 27 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. Cbrown1023 talk 18:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Altamash Kamal

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

Non-notable, unreferenced Ziggy Sawdust 19:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep so it can be improved. Presently a low quality article, but was was of the board of the national telecom and is CEO of a major national company. Needs references. DGG (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment It seems that a few of the claims to notability are either false or unverifiable (I removed some claims about having a famous dog). Our article on Communications in Pakistan argues against his company being the first ISP. Also, I don't think the fact that his company created websites for notable clients impacts his notability. However, being on the board of the telecom and being a CEO might lend some notability. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Week keep, on the basis of being a verified director of Pakistan Telecom. I've added a few sources to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, on the basis of being a CEO and import businessman, per User:Bfigura above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:33, 27 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. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speed Racer:The New Generation

Speed Racer:The New Generation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

CRYSTAL BALLING Ziggy Sawdust 19:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: Airs in less that 2 weeks, thus not "CRYSTAL BALLING". DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: As an announced (and sourced) part of the schedule for next month, this does not count as crystal-balling. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I do not see things like the GTIV being put up for deletion for Crystal Balling. Just like this article it will be released shortly. There is enough sources for the article in question. As said above. It is an announced and sourced show. Rgoodermote  21:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Crystal Ball is for topics for which information is sketchy or not officially released -- therefore speculative. Announced TV series and films, especially those in production and especially those due to debut in only a couple of weeks, do not fall under that category. And the fact a major network is airing it and it's tied into a well-known franchise covers off any notability concerns. 23skidoo (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep notable and verifiable. Crystal ballery doesn't even enter into it Bfigura ^(talk) 00:10, 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 Deleted via PROD. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enterprise: List of Defined Terms

Enterprise: List of Defined Terms (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Garbage Ziggy Sawdust 19:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Article already has a PROD on it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Yeah, probably no real need for AFD here. It'll just get deleted soon without fuss. Friday (talk) 19:44, 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 keep per absence of delete preferences and retraction by nominator (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 02:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Melody Beattie

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

Vanity page, notability not shown with third party reliable sources Scarpy (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability can be shown. -- Scarpy (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Keep agree with Russ. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; only primary sources cited. --Russ (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Changing vote to keep since independent sources have now been provided; the article still needs a thorough rewrite, but that's a different issue entirely. --Russ (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep – I am sorry if this comes off as sarcastic, however did you check anything before nominating. Just a quick Google News Search shows over 440 third party – credible – reliable and verifiable sources as shown here [14]. In the mean time, I am adding inline citations and references. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk

Comment:Notable people can still have vanity pages. Notability isn't established by searches, it's a quality of the article. If it's not citing reliable sources, then it's WP:OR. -- Scarpy (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment – Let me get this right, “Notability isn't established by searches, it's a quality of the article”. So in other words, people like Bill Gates, Moses, Mohamed and Elvis are only in Wikipedia because they have well written articles? In addition, I take it you have not reviewed the article since cites and references have been added? Or is it that you do not think that Time Magazine or Al-Anon are verifiable, reliable, creditable or third party sources? Just want to make sure which of your arguments you would like me to address first. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments – If by well written, you mean that they don't contain original research, e.g. that they demonstrate their notability by citing reliable sources for the information contained in them, then you understand me. But, you can't just say "Look, topic has X number of google news results so no matter how bad the article is, it needs to say." Al-Anon is a non-profit and does not have a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy in it's publications and would not certainly not provide a neutral point on Melody Beattie. Time Magazine would be an acceptable source for this article. -- Scarpy (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment – I’m sorry, I do not believe I said this topic contained x number of hits, I believe I said; “…. Google News Search shows over 440 third party – credible – reliable and verifiable sources as have shown here [15]…”. Regarding Al-Anon are sure you want to state that; “… does not have a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy in it's publications and would not certainly not provide a neutral point.” I believe you will find more than just a few individuals from Schoraly works that may disagree, as shown here [16]. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I'm sure about Al-Anon. The number of times an organization is mentioned in journal articles does not mean that organization's publications have a reputation for fact checking or accuracy.

Search results can be misleading. Google News indexes a lot of non-reliable sources, and not every hit (in fact most hits) for names are usual not articles about the person, but times they were just mentioned in articles on another topic. There a lot of duplicate articles that increase the number of results, but not the number of unique sources. For instance, local papers often run something that was on the AP or UPI. At any rate, the number of search Google News search results is very far from the number of third party reliable sources on a topic. -- Scarpy (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Melody Beattie is a very notable writer in the addictions and recovery field. While there may be considerable debate as to the validity of her ideas on codependency, this does not mean that she is not, herself, notable. Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep!!! Why on earth would this be deleted? Isn't inclusion a HUGE part of the very spirit of wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.6.123 (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Subject meets notability criteria, despite low-grade text in article. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 12:54, 26 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 Keep (non-admin closure). Invalid/inappropriate deletion rationale. Consensus forms that the subject meets notability through reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arul Chinnaiyan

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

What the hell? Ziggy Sawdust 19:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Although very poorly written, it does cite reliable sources that indicate at least a measure of notability within his professional field. Improve, don't delete. --Russ (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would like you to explain to me why the artcile does qualify for deletion. I can explain about the significance of the work if it is difficult for people from other areas of work to understand. vcpk (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep "What the hell?" is not a valid rationale for deletion. DarkAudit (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• keep lots & lots of papers, large number of citations: 28 papers cited over a hundred times, two cited over a thousand times (really poor quality biography). Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • comment I agree it is a poor biography. I hope others will help me improve. Thanks. vcpk (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep another low quality article, but on a notable figure as Pete has shown. (HHMI investigators almost always are, as are people in such positions as Professor of Pathology and Urology at the University of Michigan Medical School. The nom might to better to try to improve articles, and for the ones s/he is unable to improve, send them, and only them, to afd. DGG (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is in very bad shape and needs considerable work. However, the subject is clearly notable. GoogleScholar search[17] gives top citation hits of 2030, 1600, 1054, 582, 340, 288, 279, 264, 255, 234, etc. These are huge numbers. H-index is 45 per QuadSearch[18]. Again, a huge number. Passes WP:PROF by well over a mile. Definitely a keep. Nsk92 (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added some biographical data to the article to make the subject's notability apparent, including info regarding various awards and prizes he received such as the 2008 28-th annual American Association for Cancer Research Award for Outstanding Achievement in Cancer Research. Also the fact that he holds a named Chair position at the UMich Medical School. However, the creator(s) of the article still need to do substantial clean-up and further work on it to get the article up to speed. Nsk92 (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as the cleaned up version seems to be notable and verifiable. However, if the nom could provide slightly more specific details, it would help us latecomers figure out what the original issue was. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This is a procedural !vote since the nominator did not bother to provide any rationale whatsoever for deleting the article. Come back when you know why it should be deleted. Seems a bad-faith nomination. Edison (talk) 01:13, 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 Keep (non-admin closure). Consensus forms that the subject is notable and also comments on the absence of a deletion rationale. WilliamH (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trash The Dress

Trash The Dress (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self-explanatory Ziggy Sawdust 19:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. No it isn't. Please provide an actual rationale for why you think it should be deleted, rather than improved. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • quite, this is something that a lot of people derive a lot of pleasure from as a branch of photography. There are four sites around the world dedicated to it. Searching Google for 'Trash The dress' finds these sites. they are there, it exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phooto (talk • contribs) 19:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The only rationales I can think of for deletion are WP:N and WP:HOAX. I've found non-trivial mentions in The New York Times, ABC News (slideshow), and the New York Daily News--and that was a very cursory search. Note, however, that these all refer exclusively to destroying one's wedding dress after the ceremony, unlike this article. (That said, the article itself needs wikifying and expansion, and the external links need pruning.) Anturiaethwr 19:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anturiaethwr (talk • contribs)
• Keep: Anturiaethwr got there ahead of me with sources. Clearly a verifiable and notable subject. Keep, clean up, and move to Trash the Dress -- that miscapitalization bugs me worse than most, for some reason. Maybe that was why the nomination. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs expansion per Anturiaethwr, and I would suggest moving it to Trash the dress, but it is a notable phenomenon. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Looks like that's been done. Anturiaethwr 21:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anturiaethwr (talk • contribs)

• Comment Ziggy Sawdust - Can you explain why you think this should be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phooto (talk • contribs) 20:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep No proper rationale for deletion given. DarkAudit (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: it's an interesting field, and we're gathering data. Let this grow for a while. No reason for a delete Pljakobs (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note. I've done a little cleanup and added a "References" section. Anturiaethwr 21:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anturiaethwr (talk • contribs)
• Keepsufficient references by now to establish notability.DGG (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep appears to notable and sourced. A more thorough nomination would be appreciated next time though. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Saw an article about this in PDN's annual issue on wedding photography, and put it on my mental to-do list. Glad someone beat me to it. I've added a reference to PDN (available in print and on line by subscription). Fg2 (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep per lack of a rationale for deletion. It was also AfDed about half a day after creation, during which time it's also been tagged a COI and notability concern without any talk page posts. Has already been moved to Trash the dress for proper capitalization. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:16, 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 Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer L. Trudeau

Jennifer L. Trudeau (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence given that Ms. Trudeau satisfies the notability guidelines; the only thing that strikes me as possibly qualifying would be the Hopwood Awards; on the other hand, these are like University of Michigan scholarships as opposed to something like a Pulitzer Prize or a Nebula Award. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

An entry reflecting a Native American woman author's emerging work is inherently unnotable, offering nothing of value to Wikipedia? Is that the argument? -- Jennifer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrudeau (talk • contribs) 20:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please read WP:N, our notability guidelines. Also please read WP:COI. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Simply being Native American and/or a woman does not make an author notable per Wikipedia's guidelines as cited above. It's not that the work isn't valuable. The guidelines are objective, not subjective. Also as mentioned above, Wikipedia has a policy against self-promotion. -IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete An almost unpublished writer except for a few stories on the internet. "Emerging work" is a confession of non-notability at present. DGG (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no attribution of notability to credible and independent sources. Notability to come, perhaps. --Dhartung | Talk 00:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability for a writer (such as non-self-published paper books published by major publishers), just online writings. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NN & WP:COI.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, would not yet appear to be notable. When she becomes more widely published and has third-party sources covering her, then the article can be recreated. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:34, 27 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. Cbrown1023 talk 18:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] World Domination - Tour 2DVD

World Domination - Tour 2DVD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Following a complaint at OTRS I have removed a BLP violation [19]. This article is clearly written by the rpoducer of the album and relates to an unreleased product and is devoid of sources. It therefore fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL - It is also clearly original research. Needs to be deleted and only restored after release and when multiple independent sources can be demonstrated to show notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, although unreferenced their are similar articles and with a bit of work it would be fine. --FGWQPR (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• The above !vote was removed by FGWQPR, so I assume they meant to change their !vote. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FGWQPR (talk • contribs)

• Delete As above. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As above. -- content is not verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anawarhol (talk • contribs) 19:51, 26 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 16:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Märklin boxes

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

Unreferenced original research about packaging used by Märklin. Laudak (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, basically pictures of someones boxes which they wrote about, not encyclopedic. --FGWQPR (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete An advertisement of random pictures of boxes. Not encyclopædic at all. Tavix (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into the Märklin article. Article does show the history of Marklin packaging. Note also that the creator has not been notified of AfD for the article. Mjroots (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into the Märklin article, since it has some merit, but not its own article. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 17:39, 24 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 redirect to Karst (surname), a disambig page Laudak (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Karst (name)

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

Delete no indication that this name is notable; WP is not the Dutch or Eastern European phone directory. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Delete, would be better incoporated into another article as it does not really have much use on its own. --FGWQPR (talk) 19:24, 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 no consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 18:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Monk and the Three Julies

Mr. Monk and the Three Julies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn episode of tv series Ziggy Sawdust 19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, I know the plot of the episode but don't know what show it is! --FGWQPR (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I added an intro paragraph that should take care of that. Anturiaethwr 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, but only after the article has been obsessively-compulsively rewritten. Non-notable individual episode of Monk. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I can find a couple of reviews of the episode, here and here; if anyone disputes their reliability as sources, though, I won't object. (More than a few of the Monk episode articles should be tagged for notability, but I suspect there are reviews out there by independent sources, should anyone care to look.) Anturiaethwr 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Don't Delete I am using my own words and not copying any sources or plagiarizing. I saw the episode at least a dozen times.

• Comment. I don't think anyone thinks you plagiarized, Dthdc4, but I don't think that's the issue here. The question is whether this particular episode merits an article on Wikipedia. If it's been the subject of non-trivial coverage by independent, reliable sources, then it is notable; if not, then the article should be deleted. By the way, why did you add a table to the top of this AfD? It makes the page all wonky. Anturiaethwr 20:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anturiaethwr (talk • contribs)

• Comment: Did you notice how many Monk episodes have synopses? They are not being considered for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.80.70.226 (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

*Comment. And just what the spiroratstar is wrong with SineBot today? It hasn't tagged Dthdc4's unsigned comment in the half hour it's been there, but it almost instantly tags mine--right after the signatures. If anyone knows what's going on, could you let me know at my talk page? Thanks. Anturiaethwr 20:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Problem solved. AnturiaethwrTalk 02:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Other TV show episodes have entries, why not this one? --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 17:40, 24 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 under WP:CSD G11 advertising. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indo Lighting

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

Unsourced advertising Ziggy Sawdust 19:08, 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 deletion for blatant copyright violation -JodyB _talk 19:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Troy Wragg

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

Clearly non-notable, unsourced, wall o'text, textbook example of advertisement Ziggy Sawdust 19:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:V, WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV, WP:AUTO, WP:COI ... JohnCD (talk) 19:12, 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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Consensus forms unanimously on the inherent notability of school districts and comments on the deletion rationale. WilliamH (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alabama Department of Youth Services Schools

Alabama Department of Youth Services Schools (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable as all Hell Ziggy Sawdust 18:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep - as agreed on AfD, numerous times, school districts are inherently notable both as government bodies and as a repository for information on nn schools. Needs expansion not deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The exact link here is a redirect to Alabama Department of Youth Services School District. That page is the one with the AfD tag. Are we to assume that you're meaning to delete the article, and not just the redirect? NOTE: The redirect can be speedy deleted per CSD R1 should the article be deleted JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - to be fair to the nominator I have just moved the page to the correct title, hence the redirect. I am sure that he intended to delete the underlying page. TerriersFan (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• No problem, just making sure things were sorted out :-) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. School districts are considered notable. This is a school district and a Google News search shows sustained WP:RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Consensus is that all school districts are inherently notable. Isn't that documented on the AfD results page? and where did that shortcut go to, anyway? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, though I don't quite agree with the nominator: though the department seems to be notable, it's not quite as notable as Hell. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per what seems to be consensus. School districts are notable. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously notable. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 17:41, 24 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 near-unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 02:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theodor Landscheidt

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

The page makes no claims for notability of the subject, and I don't think he is. Moreover, there are no reliable sources for just about everything on the page. I tried to add some cn's for the more obvious lacks [20], but they didn't last. There are no sources for his dob, place, that he was a judge (I happen to know that he was indeed an astrologer and wrote at least one published paper on climatology), for his claims about 2030, for the existence of his institure, for his awards, etc etc. The only real source [21] doesn't even support most of this stuff and is anyway unreliable William M. Connolley (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Needs work, however a quick tour through Google Books provided sources for some items, including his institute. As for awards, I was not able to find anything, however instead of deleting the article, the awards section should probably be removed. The "Cycles Research Institute" what ever that is, states: Landscheidt was an "author and publisher of many papers on cycles"[22] who knows if they actually gave him an award. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• weak delete There are actually at last 6 published papers, 4 of them at least in good peer reviewed journals. Note of them have been cited more than about 5 or 6 times, but he can't be dismissed out of hand. Still that's nowhere near an adequate record for an academic researcher. I leave open the question that he may perhaps be notable as a modern believer in astrology who did have peer reviewed papers. I've read at least one of them, and it avoided mentioning astrology. DGG (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Delete. Citation index is actually very low. Cited sources do not state notability of this person. I convinced by the arguments below. Let's improve rather than delete. Biophys (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• According to Google Books, he is highly cited, [23]. Many of the source are in German however, so it may appear to someone that Theodor is not as well know as he is. For example here is a German news source discussing him. I ran it through google translator for those non-Germans [24]. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• You have the wrong meaning of "cite". Try google scholar William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Actually I do not, using Google books and showing the majority are inline citations in published books, shows he is highly cited. Just because you have an alternate method, that also searches papers, not just published books, does not discount the former. Hopefully you now know how to make use of a new tool, in a non-conventional manner. Your google scholars page shows his papers have been cited over 50 times collectively however, seems you did a good job of proving he, or at least his work, is notable. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just to add, apparently the link William notes as unreliable is a research institute in Kazakhstan. They have been cited by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [25][26] --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• And finally William admits to having a back and forth with this supposedly unnotable person. [27] (link readded with expressed permission) The link was posted by William, just in case any personal information is located on it. --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thats the ***** argument I've heard in a long time. Since when has talking to me been grounds for notability? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC). And... no, that website has *not* been cited by the FAO. Nor has the institute William M. Connolley (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• The person and the institute have been, perhaps you should read the link provided, both of them. Please help me understand where I stated someone talking to you is grounds for notability, a bit of an ego it appears, or perhaps you just did not noticed that I was stating your nomination seems not to be based on the article nor its contents, but on a tiff you had online with the man one day, since the article is sourced and shows notability as consensus seems to state. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• We've back-and-forthed this on t:TL, so I direct watchers to there. In brief: the UN has *not* cited the website. It has used text 9about forest fires) from the websites author. IWS maintains that this makes the website a WP:RS. I disagree. Comment welcome (over there) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• My full argument which you failed to fully articulate, is that the United Nations did not just cite, nor just use some words, but distributed an entire report by the research institute, making it reliable. I have asked William to present some proof that a research institute in Kazakhstan is not reliable, he has refused to, stating the UN thinking a source is reliable, does not trump him thinking they are not reliable. I keep asking for a source they are not reliable, and he either is refusing or does not have one. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep His name is bandied about sufficiently that he probably deserves an article. Really, he's an astrologer? I'm not the least bit surprised. This is a perfect snark in the making. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep He is not an astrologer. (Jarl87 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)) Theodor Landscheidt expressly denied this in a back and forth with William Connolley back 2000. He has written numerous papers and at least 3 books. Here is one example [28]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarl87 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Of course he was an astrologer (being dead, he isn't anything anymore), but wanted to pretend otherwise in order to sneak stuff into the sci literature. Thats why all his bio is sourced to dodgy astrology books William M. Connolley (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read his books? Believing in or reading a horoscope does not make someone an Astrologer. Unless you have something more substantial than your word, which Theodore Landscheidt himself denied, then the astrologer reference should be removed. (Jarl87 (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

You could try this.[29] It's such a muddled mish-mash that it's hard to follow, but it looks like someone trying desperately to find an underlying physical basis for their mystical beliefs. Representative quote: "In my book Sun-Earth-Man I have produced evidence that man's activity and even creativity is linked to the Sun's activity. Heliocentric constellations of planets are involved in this connection, as they regulate the Sun's activity via its oscillations about the center of mass of the solar system." Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Or this [30] William M. Connolley (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The "we in astrology" bit is clear enough, innit? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Does anyone know specific information about his doctorate degree? His article was published in Solar Physics. Here is the abstract. It is one of many examples where he was published in a scientific journal. Here is a image that references his DOB and date of death. (Jarl87 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

• Keep Article already establishes notability, but should be improved nonetheless. ~ UBeR (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per all of the above. John254 03:29, 26 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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclosearch

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

Launched today, thus nothing of note yet is really possible and WP:CRYSTAL applies, with no assertation of notability also. Seems to fail both 1, 2 and 3 of Wikipedia:Notability (web) SGGH ^speak! 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC) SGGH ^speak! 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No notability (yet). -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Anturiaethwr 18:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anturiaethwr (talk • contribs)
• Delete While I don't like an article being nominated so close to its creation, this looks like blatant spam. Multiple redlink categories, spammy tone, article created the day of website launch, and an SPA creator. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

NOTE:An IP removed the AfD tag; I replaced it and warned the IP. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with JeremyMcCracken's reasons. Also, it looks like someone is listing links to this website in other articles, which, for me at least, raises some red flags. Tnxman307 (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

People need this. Plus Encyclosearch links to you.--4.244.33.68 (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it seems like the article should stay so could u plz remove that thing now?--4.244.33.219 (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The tag needs to remain in place as long as this discussion is open. Typically this is five days, unless there is reason for early deletion or early closure. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - blatant self-promotion. Renata (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, advertisement for a website launched 21 April 2008. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Save, Respect, Protect - Isn't the SS Free your partner?--4.244.36.241 (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Save - Article of importance.--Ugabuga22222 (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Save - Anyone know the person who came up with this idea, its great!--4.244.33.225 (talk) 16:10, 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 speedily deleted as G2 (test page) by Orangemike (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. Blair - Speak to me 00:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time wasted is life wasted

Time wasted is life wasted (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Clearly unsalvageable OR, essay, personal reflection ukexpat (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete OR, opinion, essay. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Just rambling personal essay. Waste of time. ;o) Plvekamp (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as personal essay. (A worthwhile, though somewhat cliché, sentiment; the writing could use some work, though.) Anturiaethwr 18:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

NOTE:The article is also tagged to be speedy deleted, CSD G2 (test page). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs)

• Delete definitely an essay. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 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 02:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pinewood School, Los Altos

Pinewood School, Los Altos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This high school does not meet the notability requirements for schools. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - includes a high school. Several notable alumni and plenty of sources available. The article needs cleaning up and sourcing not deleting. TerriersFan (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Notability_(schools) - A high school does not imply notability. Notable alumni do not imply notability. And they aren't _that_ notable, no offense to Şebnem or Eileen, both outstanding athletes. I don't think being the top basketball player at division 1 school automatically makes your high school notable enough for Wikipedia. (Disclosure - I went to school here for a couple years.) ErikHaugen (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Notability_(schools) is simply a proposal and a flawed one at that. The consensus through many AfDs is that high schools are notable. Notable sporting alumni go towards supporting the notability of the school's athletics program. Finally, the test is whether there are multiple sources available (not necessarily in the article) to meet WP:N and a couple of minutes spent searching shows that there are. TerriersFan (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
      • If HS are automatically notable, then fine. Doesn't seem right, though, and it would be nice if that page were updated to reflect that. What are the sources? I couldn't find many other than sites that review every private school, etc. Do local smalltown papers covering the cross country team's success count? I really don't think there's anything noteworthy about this school vs. any other small private school. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The article may be a mess, but searches show abundant WP:RS coverage to fix it. Also, multiple verifiable alumni, including at least one that's not yet in Wikipedia, and multiple athletic titles help. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Are there any WP:RS other than local papers that will give a few column-inches every now and then to any local high school's sporting events and the like? I can't find any. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Whether or not one agrees that a high school is inherently notable, this article is well-sourced, high in content, and seems to pass the 3A test for schools (academics-athletics-alumni) that some people look for in notability. I appreciate the nominator's disclosure that he attended the school and does not believe it to be worthy of an article, but it's a fairly well-written article, and articles about secondary schools get preference over those about primary schools. Mandsford (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think the quality of the article is at issue here, it's simply that this high school is on the low end of notoriety as far as high schools go. I concede that it is pretty well written, although some paragraphs could probably be pruned. Academics - I guess it's pretty good, are there sources that it is truly exceptional or something? Athletics - not really; it's really small and occasionally dominates the other really small schools in the area, such as recently in women's basketball; I don't think it's ever been the best in the state at any sport or anything like that. Alumni - no household names, certainly; 2 division 1a bball stars, a university professor, and a budding film director? ErikHaugen (talk) 23:03, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 18:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example calculations with roots of unity

Example calculations with roots of unity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reputable sources given to estabilish notability of these results, or for verifiability, or to establish that it is not original research. (The only sources listed are a Spanish Usenet discussion, and a paper by Weber and Keckeisen that does not actually describe the subject of this article. When sources were requested on the Talk page, the author (User:Zahlentheorie) stated that the mathematical correctness of the article was sufficient.) —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or transwiki to some mathematics Wikibook (though I couldn't find a good target). The calculations themselves are not notable; as the title says, they are example calculations. Wikipedia is not a textbook. And it may be original research. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This material is suitable for a textbook, but not an encyclopedia. Sancho 16:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Are the contents of the article correct? I didn't look very closely, but I found myself becoming suspicious. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I think it's correct down to the appearance of an undefined Φ, but profoundly trivial. Send it back to the newsgroup that produced it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I think asking from an article that is about examples that it represent a profound contribution like a main article is misunderstanding the word "example." Examples can be extremely useful and complement an article in very useful ways, e.g. consider the example for Pell's equation, which explains how to solve them in a useful and immediately applicable way. As for this article, filtering coefficients of a series or a polynomial according to the value modulo some n of the exponent is a very useful technique that has many uses. Similarly, the article shows how to compute with roots of an equation using only the equation itself, without actually calculating the roots. This too is quite useful. As for the induction proof, I think it's a nice example of complete induction and maybe we could link to it from the Mathematical Induction page. -Zahlentheorie (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a how-to guide and these applications are trivial. Better to link to symmetric polynomial, which should actually explain the technique. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    • As the entries on this page show, trivial is a term that is highly subjective. To establish triviality on Wikipedia, you'd need some kind of a vote, I think, at any rate more than the opinion of one contributor only. -Zahlentheorie (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
      • There is a very simple test for Wikipedia articles: can you provide a reference to a reputable source that derives these results? If you can't find a reputable reference for these calculations (or at least very similar ones) then it is either (a) too trivial/obscure for textbooks etc. to use it as a useful example or (b) nontrivial original research. Take your pick; either way it is inappropriate for Wikipedia (independent of the "Wikipedia is not a textbook" arguments). —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, the induction proof is a special case of formula #35 from the Mathworld article [Cyclotomic Polynomial], which if I remember correctly does fulfill Wikipedia's standards for reputability. -Zahlentheorie (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Great. Once you add in the proper citations (starting w/ mathworld and probably going to the other sources cited on that page) so we can see that this is not an original work, then everything will be kosher. We can't just infer, by looking at the article, that it is related to some preexisting work. That's why we need people who specialize in that sort of thing to provide citations and other references. To the layperson (and the editors at large) the authority of an article stems from the sources and the sources only. Add those sources and the article can stay. As it stands right now, with 2 sources (which do not count as verifiable for WP:N), it should be deleted Protonk (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Hello there, I added the link to Mathworld and checked the references of their article. It comes down to about five possible candidates for theorem #35. Unfortunately I am not at a university, so I don't have access to these specialized journals. -Zahlentheorie (talk) 11:17, 27 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, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charles P. Kindleberger III

Charles P. Kindleberger III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

He's done a lot for his community, but he's got absolutely nothing per WP:BIO. No coverage in reliable sources or anything. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. I actually thought I had prodded this a while ago. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - a good guy, but not notable. JohnCD (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no apparent assertion of notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:49, 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 no consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 18:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stanisław Krysicki

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO. His leadership of Scouting Association of the Republic is questionable (no Google hits [31][32][33], no third-party source, and no informations at Gazeta.pl Płock biography [34]). The rest of biography doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines. Visor (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Hardly notable and the creator did not respond to request for further refs or quotations for verification, the ref he claimed to have used on talk (not used in the article) is a memoir by the subject... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep - semi-notable person, still the references are immaculate, no shadow of fraud even if some sequels of his life before the war are not completely covered. I would be surprised if they were. greg park avenue (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —greg park avenue (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep - military judge and several other interesting details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacRusgail (talk • contribs) 16:00, April 26, 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 Speedily deleted as entirely non-notable; no notable refs found; highly unlikely to become notable; application of WP:SNOW.- CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coolify thy wall

Coolify thy wall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable play - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Snowball delete. Play created and performed by one grade 8 class doesn't come close to meeting WP:FICTION. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Snowball delete per Dawn Bard. Anturiaethwr 16:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:FICTION, but I'm tempted to say that it meets WP:MADEUP ;-). Would need a re-write even if it did meet WP:FICTION ("The actors were payed zero dollars in cash, but they were happy that they were able to put on such a great performance" indeed!) -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:30, 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. Cbrown1023 talk 18:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shadrack Bogan

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

total non-notability, essentially a genealogy blog Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable individual. I'm sure he was a very amiable fellow, but as the article comepletely fails to assert any kind of notability, I think it has to go. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, purely WP:LOCAL significance. --Dhartung | Talk 17:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NN Wishtoremainanon (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The Hog Mountain House was the first hotel in the county. It was erected by Shadrack Bogan, who married Ann Fee in Augusta and moved to Hog Mountain in 1815. That makes him notable in my book--DimaG (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• question do The Hog Mountain House or Ann Fee have articles? And are you saying "country", as in the whole US, or "county", as in some little corner of Georgia? Please clarify. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:43, 26 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, default to keep. Disregarding any possible 'delete' !votes, third-party sources were provided which buoy claims of notability. The article does, however, need to be cleaned up and rewritten to stay in line with what the sources actually say. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sports Chiropractic

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

This looks like an attempt by POV chiropractors to fork away from the main chiropractic article where finally some science based editors are now active. Mccready (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Addendum CommentUpon a bit of digging, it seems like Mccready has selectively canvassed editors to delete this article. Take a look: [35][36][37][38][39]. Is this not a violation of WP:CANVASS? Given his disruptive history on chiropractic, I think this is a clear cut case of of an attempt to subvert what is clearly a notable article I think that admins should carefully look at this case... CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• In fairness, out of those links, it points to three users who were notified, one of which has already made a !vote here with a valid argument. It probably should be consided prior to closing nonetheless, should either of the other users also come here.JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just to note, 2 out of the three have made a !vote. DigitalC (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• How did I miss that? Agree with the canvassing concern then. It's hard to reach a real consensus when everyone brings allies to vote their way, on either side of a debate. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I did warn McCready about the canvasing. I would have found the AfD eventually anyway since I keep tabs of alt med articles, and the other contributor was already editing the article I believe, so I don't believe the vote has been particularily baised in any direction. Jefffire (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The point here is that Mccready deliberately cherry picked editors who a) shared his POV and more importantly b) have had disagreements with the lead author (myself) of the article. One only has to look at my Talk Page and archive to see what I mean. CorticoSpinal (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the canvassing does not appear to have made a difference this is moot. User:Mccready has been warned (by me) not to do it again. If he abides by that then there is no issue there. Jefffire (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Outdent Actually, I think there is cause for concern; I see your edits in the history, but neither of the other canvassed editors appear to have edited it, and one has !voted here already. We can't really know if these users would have found this article and/or AfD otherwise. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are correct then that would mean that there was at most one vote which was gained (assuming the editor in question could never have found it by natural means). Such a small effect is not cause for concern since AfD's are decided by consensus, not by numberical voting. The only serious issue was the act of canvassing itself, which will hopefully not be repeated. Jefffire (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's true- I don't think the consensus has been altered. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. The nom's bias notwithstanding, this article does not contribute to the value of chiropractic medicine article; rather, this is a mere application of the practice which does not merit this sort of expansion. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• This is not merely an application of Chiropractic within the sports world, it is a specialty. DigitalC (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep, if cleaned up - the term does appear to be fairly widely used, but the {{cite}} uses need to be sorted out - there are a couple of {{{title}}}s and some references that don't have any kind of description at all. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 16:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have fixed the sources' title issues. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Citations 11 and 12 are still just bare links. Can they not be replaced with {{cite}} templates? -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, but I disagree with the reasoning that this is a deliberate PoV fork. However, I am very dubious that this is a notable topic. Rather, it seams to be about a few very niche courses run by a few colleges coupled with some WP:SYNTH stuff about chiropractic use by sportsmen. Jefffire (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, and not having significant sources as to its existence as a specialty or the use of the term. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• A quick search would have been beneficial...[40], [41], [42] amongst the 4800+ hits at Google Scholar [43] CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This is not notable in any way. Kind of like the Veterinary chiropractic article. The article contains a handle of unreliable pro chiro partisan sources. Wikipedia should not be used for promotional pieces. QuackGuru (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• You claim its not notable but 2 days ago you proposed [44] that we include it in the main Chiropractic article. You even wanted to bring the "unreliable" partisan sources. This is just another example of attempts at civil disruption that you have mastered over the past year. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Certainly just a fledgling article but with sources out there such as this one and this one, I don't think a claim of "non-notable" really applies. I think there is an interesting article to write about here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Sourced, and the g-hits tend to indicate a wide use of this term. I sense a bit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from a couple of those in favor of deletion. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and echo the remarks of JeremyMcCranken. The skeptics will do *anything* to disrupt and censor quality chiropractic medicine material, a quick look at the blocklog of Mccready illustrates that he has been disruptive to this topic in the past and seems to be resuming an unhealthy fixation which needs an adjustment. I would also note that QG would fit into this category as well with Jefffire's recent comments and contributions to be less than helpful with respect to the topic at hand. Addendum, in terms of notability, Pubmed returns 60 hits "sports chiropractic" specifically and over 277 000 hits on Google right off the bat. That argument not supported by the literature search, and is weak at best. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)CorticoSpinal (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per the article itself, which starts off by calling it an "emerging sub-specialty ". Yes, someone could naively use the term by accident, but I also see "are increasingly being approved " , "There appears to be an increase in the usage" , ". As part of a demonstration project" , "has steadily grown" , "Chiropractors' success in achieving acceptance on sport medicine teams is contingent " . all of this indicates that in the view of even thee promotors of the article, it is not yet notable. DGG (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I could have fluffed it DGG, but I was being honest and writing the words as cited. Had I known that being so NPOV would have been problematic I should have left no doubt. Suddenly sports chiropractors treating at the Olympics games isn't notable. Interesting. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

yes, I think your did indeed write an honest article. But your interest in it led you to assume the subject is more notable than the sources actually indicate. Understandable, I'm not blaming you--you're not spamming; but nonetheless the specialty is not yet notable.DGG (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep Obviously notable. . . see the sources already given at the article. . . Plus I know there are lots more out there.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't know that it is an EMERGING specialty, and therefore the article could probably use a clean-up. However, it is a specialty (at least in North America), as seen by ccssc.ca and acbsp.com. In Canada for example, for a chiropractor to be elligible to be on the Olympic Core Health Care Team, they MUST be a Fellow of the College of Chiropractic Sports Sciences. DigitalC (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• I made note of this and changed the status to reflect it's stature in NA and OZ

• Delete, not notable per DDG, gazing into the future.... Shot info (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notible topic needing its own article. Why it was nominated for deletion a day after it was started and not allowed to develop into a good article is beyond me.--Hughgr (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Scanning the internet, I see reference to major media discussing this subject (NPR, CNN, Newsweek, NYT, WSJ etc) with its practitioners. I also see a specific journal archive with an evidence based approach over a dozen plus years, I see books on the subject. DigitalC's point that the Canadian Olympic team requires the FCCSS seems doubly notable. Disclaimer: I have *never* been treated by a chiro (or PT). Looks notable with plenty of potential cites. This article seems to be developing much faster than most. Looks like a (don'tlikeit) sink or swim, or be Shot afd nomination.--I'clast (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This is a POV fork. This is not a recognized subspecialty like "Sports Medicine" is to real medicine (that is, medicine supported by a wealth of scientific analysis). There is no need for this article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as such and merge referenced material to chiropractic article - what concerns me is the heterogeneous nature of the article. We have (1) a Canadian degree/subpecialty, then (2) what it may be equivalent to in the US, then (3) general notes about the use of chiropractors, not sports chiropractors as per this spubspecialty, in sports...thus it could be construed as an OR synthesis. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• CommentIt appears as though the anti-chiropractic brigade has been recruited in full force to voice their opinions here. Users Mccready, QuackGuru, Jefffire, are all mega skeptics who essentially want to shut this article down in spite that it's notable and more importantly, there's indexed, peer-reviewed research that proves its notability as a subspecialty. User Orangemarlin personally does not like me and has resorted to continuous personal attacks against me (anti-science) and he was recruited by Mccready (see diffs above) as was Jefffire. QuackGuru suddenly flip-flopped, first agreeing it was notable and wanted it even included in the main article (which I did not suggest) and then abruptly changed his mind, probably due to an offline email. Looking at his and Mccready block log you'll see a pattern of disruption at Chiropractic, and this is simply an extension of it. I propose a topic ban, at least, for those two after the dust has settled here. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• And on that note, it seems that some long lost editors have been dusted off and pushed into the "Keep" fray. I recommend that there is some (a lot) of AGF, but since CS seems to be pushing for topic banning, I suggest that he joins in the ban, or else his cries could be construed as a little bit of crying wolf. Shot info (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I don't think this is a POV fork. It is natural that articles spin off into more narrow sub-articles as the body of text grows. If some editors view the article as POV they are free to add balancing references. MaxPont (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• At the moment there is an artificial synthesis between the subspecialty diploma and the use of chiropractors in sports. If there are references that link the two they need to be added, otherwise there both facts should be on main chiropractic page. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused of your comment re: artificial synthesis, Casliber. In order to treat at the Olympics you need to possess a sports chiropractic fellowship; both in the US and Canada. What kind of reference are you specifically looking for and perhaps I can track it down as I was going to flesh out the article over a few weeks. I didn't anticipate getting nominated and chopped in 1 day. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ref 10 makes a few mentions of chiropractors but says nothing of this qualification of being a prerequisite. Ref 9 is the newsletter of the publication which says this as well but does not say that these chiropractors are required to be sports chiropractors. What is needed is an independent ref that states that this subspecialisation diploma is a prerequisite for work in the field. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, Casliber. I do have memos indicating that DCs must have their FCCSS (or equivalent) to work in a clinical capacity at the Olympics but I need to track down a source that confirms this. Cheers, CorticoSpinal (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, that is the crux of it for mine, so let me know when these come in. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just to update, I found a passing mention of the requirement here but I know there is a much better source out there. It's a start, I believe the paper by Theberge(2008) at the Sports Chiro page has mention of this as well. It should be read is it proves beyond any doubt, the notability of the topic. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Chiropractors can achieve Diplomate status in Sports after 300-500 hours of study in a Chiropractic or Medical school. It is required in order to become a member of the Olympic Medical Board. Anthon01 (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Some "keep"ers are getting a bit worked up over this- please remember WP:NPA and WP:AGF. The arguments presented will decide this one. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep the subject is notable, and the sources in the article already are sufficient to establish notability. The article itself needs to be toned down in order to come in line with the sources cited, but that is an issue for the article itself, not afd. I don't think that the behavior of the main editors for the article in this entry is very pleasant, but I'm sure it comes from defending a profession like chiropractic. Again, like the article issues itself, their conduct on this page should not influence the destiny of this article. Protonk (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to chiropractic or weak keep. I agree with Protonk. This article definitely needs a great deal to get it NPOV, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't. Ketsuekigata (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• CommentI would like to apologize if the tone of some of my posting breeched a civil line; it's just extremely frustrating at times dealing with the tactics of certain editors. I was somewhat miffed at the time too because what I feel is a perfect example of WP:INSPECTOR and any untoward comments should be taken with a grain of salt and knowing a bit of the context behind them. Regardless, I am sorry if there's comments that editors would like striked out then I can do that as well. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Several of the cited sources do not correspond to the points they are cited for. Few if any support the claim that "sports chiropractic" is generally recognized terminology with a clearly understood meaning. This article has several aspects of original research, and is therefore inappropriate. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 21:00, 27 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. Cbrown1023 talk 19:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International Virtual Aviation Organization

International Virtual Aviation Organization (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Despite two prior nominations nothing has been done to establish the notability of the subject in the article, and the article still contains no reliable sources -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep 80,000 members is pretty good. Wikipedia is not paper. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply Membership is irrelevant. It's just a big number. Notability and reliable sources are what's important. DarkAudit (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, by the way, delete for lacking what's important there. DarkAudit (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unfortunately, I must agree with above editors. I have been unable to find any reliable, third party, sources. Icemotoboy (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Membership is not irrelevant. Organisations with large groups of members are notable-- same as best sellers in books, market share in companies. DGG (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, but they must still meet the verifiability policy, which this doesn't. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG's explanatoin. -63.17.15.226 (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC) — 63.17.15.226 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - you want to keep, per DGGs explanation, even though the next line points out that it fails the verifiability policy? (edit - I'd just like to point out that this is the only edit 63.17.15.226 has made so far!) -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 10:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • In fairness to IP users everywhere, it is pretty hard to maintain an edit history on a dynamic IP ISP, which most people use. It's when you get a bunch in the same range (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclosearch) or same geographic area, then it's suspicious. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      • The proliferation of IPs and their respective traceroutes makes me think you were right about this one, though :-) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless there is an independent, reliable source to confirm that there are 80,000 active members in the organization. The membership number is an impressive claim to notability, which would nullify a speedy deletion. However, the article still needs a source to confirm that the number is accurate and not puffery on the part of the organization.--FreeKresge (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Allow me to make a comment as a passer-by. This IVAO is as well known in the flight simulation community as the other network called VATSIM; I think deleting an article just because that in the article there's not yet a verifiable source saying that it is notable is ridiculous and is going too far. (How about the fact that one of the two dominant flight simulation web sites, flightsim.com, found it necessary to put it in their official announcement when IVAO just published a magazine? But wait, the Flightsim.com article got deleted too for the same reason, so I guess not.) If so, why don't we for example delete most articles on the world's places such as this and this and this, seeing that most of them are unheard of outside their local areas? I'm ready to bet that tens if not hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles should be deleted by this standard. As someone who would rather see that IVAO actually be "not notable" and its article removed, what irritates me is not that someone is trying to delete this particular article, but that this is the sort of reason Wikipedia officially uses to delete articles. (And oh, my IP doesn't seem to have any prior editing history either, so you can all just disregard my comment.) -- 119.11.7.91 (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)— 119.11.7.91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Yes? So then how this is confirmed?: (VATSIM) "As of January 2008, the network has over 150,000 registered members." I don't see any verifiable source to confirm that. If you want to delete IVAO, delete also VATSIM for the same reason! This really gets me angry, when IVAO article is again nominated for deletion, while VATSIM is ok. Either remove both or none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.229.111.200 (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC) — 132.229.111.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment, the VATSIM article is very poorly sourced... but it does have some reliable sources, whereas the IVAO has none. In any case this AfD is for the IVAO, not VATSIM. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Some of the sources mentioning VASTIM also mention IVAO. The article needs to be improved, but improvement is not impossible. some translation needed, maybe, A discussion of the changes in pilot training including IVAO, covered VERY briefly, Coverage in a flight sim website, although that one may not be fully independent, Google news coverage, making sure to select "archive" instead of "last month"--remember, MORE than half of these are false positives, but that does not make the other half not exist, and so on. Notable. Verifiable. Article needs work. Protonk (talk) 19:04, 25 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 redirect to Lovers' Requiem. Cbrown1023 talk 18:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Killer Likes Candy

Killer Likes Candy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:MUSIC, albums and singles of notable performers must still possess individual notability; this one does not; no CSD (yet) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't find the video for it anywhere, i doubt it was even released as a single. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom. No notability for this individual song. Victor Lopes (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This article should be redirected to the artist page not deleted. Catchpole (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lovers' Requiem, the album the song is from, as a plausible search term. -- saberwyn 21:56, 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 no consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 18:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Dwyer (professor)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

John Dwyer (professor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable academic. Being a Fellow of the IEE doesn't seem adequate for WP:PROF, which is the only biographical guideline which seems to apply. Dwyer function, which would, if accepted, also be grounds for at least putting some biographical information in that article, is also up for deletion by {{prod}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Weak publication record, now at an unaccredited university. Former deputy head is not enough (former dean, maybe, but he's not that) and neither is fellow of IEE (fellow of the IEEE would probably be enough for me, but again, he's not that). Does not pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Richmond is accredited in the UK and in the US; Dwyer was indeed previously Fellow of the IEE for many years; if the more complete biographical information had not been recently deleted, it would be clear that Dwyer was Department Chair at Richmond for more than twelve years, a Director of a postgraduate studies for two years and a Ph.D. external examiner at the University of Portsmouth. Dwyer is a full professor at Richmond.[Dwyerj] The preceding comment was added by User:Dwyerj, who created the article John Dwyer (professor). Nsk92 (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I misunderstood the line "The DFES (Department for Education and Skills) in the UK DOES NOT list Richmond as a recognised "Degree Awarding Body" in Richmond, The American International University in London? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you David. The "recognition" section in Wiki-Richmond definitely needs correcting but I think our Accreditation VP should talk care of it rather than me. For sure, we are accredited to award degrees in both the UK and in the US. (Dwyerj) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.54.243.250 (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I am not ready to vote yet, but certain things about this article look strange. For example, the article claims that he used to be a "Deputy Head of the Computer Science Department at the City University of New York". I don't know what that means. I am very well familiar with the CUNY system and it consists of a large number of colleges, each with its own department structure. So there is no such single thing as "The Computer Science Department at the City University of New York". The colleges that comprise the CUNY system vary widely in standing and reputation, from the City College of CUNY to various community colleges. So at best the phrase "Deputy Head of the Computer Science Department at the City University of New York" is ambiguous and at worst it is misleading. Either way it needs to be clarified. I looked up Dwyer's webpage at Richmond [45] and the same ambiguous language is used there. Nsk92 (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I worked at the City College School of Engineering (Dwyerj) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.54.243.250 (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I was preparing to poke around in the Wayback Machine, but unfortunately all of cuny.edu is blocked. --Dhartung | Talk 17:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not sure what it adds to this case, but apparently Rudy Giuliani mentioned him, peripherally and not by name, as part of a campaign ad, as an example of somebody the INS was spending too much attention on when they should have been deporting criminals instead. According to this web page, which cites a 2000 Rochester newspaper story about his case, he was deported because he didn't have the proper visa to continue working at the US college that employed him after CUNY. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The research and publication record is very undistinguished, especially for such an active field as computer science. I could not locate any published papers that actually cite his work using GoogleScholar, GoogleBooks, etc and the h-index appears to be close to zero. Some of the publications listed, such as the first three items in Algana Associates, appear to be essentially self-published technical reports. The claim to having the Dwyer function named after him does not hold up either as this term does not seem to have been used by any-one other than Dwyer himself (Google and GoogleScholar turn up nothing relevant[46][47])The university itself does not appear to be properly recognized in the UK. In any event, the university Richmond, The American International University in London, hardly seems a place of active research. They don't even have a well-defined department structure. Thus all exact sciences and humanities are lumped together into a single "Department of Arts & Sciences" with the staff of 27 people, many of whom are adjuncts[48]. No graduate degrees in sciences are offered. The only claim to notability of any kind appears to be having been a fellow of IEE, which is not sufficient given the otherwise mostly blank research record. Fails WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Dwyer is an internationally respected teacher, having worked in top universitites in London and the United States. He was also Head of the Computing Department at my university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usangel16 (talk • contribs) — Usangel16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong Keep. Dr Dwyer is an exceptional academic who is extremely dedicated to the education of his students. He was Dept. Chair at my University and has worked in several top universities in the US and UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmyEnever (talk • contribs) 16:32, 23 April 2008— AmyEnever (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If you want the article to be kept, you need to argue that it satisfies some Wikipedia notability guideline such as WP:PROF, WP:BIO or WP:N. (Which in my opinion is clearly not the case here). Whether or not someone is "extremely dedicated to the education of his students" is irrelevant for notability purposes. The claim of being an "exceptional academic" is also not substantiated. There is no evidence that Dwyer's work has been widely cited by other scientists in the scholarly publications in his field (in fact, I could not find any published citations of his work at all). The publication list is rather short and several items there are essentially self-published. Being a Department Chair at a place like Richmond is not indicative of notability in view of the above discussion. From what I could tell by looking at his vita, the best place Dwyer has worked was the City College of CUNY. That is a good place, but it is no Harvard or Oxford, and having worked there, in and of itself, does not indicate notability. As far as I can tell, he clearly fails each of WP:PROF, WP:BIO or WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Dwyer was Chair of Arts and Sciences in Richmond and the university is properly accredited. Please note that wikipedia guidelines specifically advise that google scholar is not a strong measure for academic notability. Furthermore, quality of research counts above quantity of research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokoshaggy (talk • contribs) 19:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC) — Kokoshaggy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please, give me a break. Yes, WP:PROF says that WebOfScience and Scopus are more reliable that GoogleScholar, but GoogleScholar can be used and is often used in AfD discussions as a quick test in determining academic notability. In any event, neither WebOfScience nor Scopus produce any hits for papers citing Dwyer's work either (or at least I could not find any, after quite a bit of searching). It is true that quality is more important than quantity. An yes, having one-two very highly cited papers may be enough to establish academic notability in some cases. But in this case we have no reliable sources that, per WP:RS that cite any of Dwyer's papers (forget about being highly cited, there seems to be trouble with his work being cited at all). So there are no reliable sources to substantiate that his work has made a substantial impact in his field. Nsk92 (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I listed the three single-purpose accounts above at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dwyerj. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP All I can say is that Dr. Dwyer is a highly respected academic. I see people are making false comments about Richmond, The American International University and calling us meatpuppets and socketpuppets. Well that certainly is not the case. Dr. Dwyer was my Lecturer and advisor throughout my univeristy career going back several years, and all I can say is that he is a great academic and very well respected. Auggla (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC) — Auggla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • The statement "all I can say is that he is a great academic and very well respected" is not a good argument for keeping an article in WP. That statement is your personal opinion about him. Your opinion may well be justified, but you have to prove this by providing verifiable evidence to support your claim, per WP:V and WP:RS. You also need to prove, again by providing verifiable evidence, that the subject satisfies the requirements of one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, such as WP:N, WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Unless you do that, your vote here is not going to count for much, whether it says "Keep", "Strong Keep" or "Very Strong Keep". Regarding you being or not being a meatpuppet, again, it is your actions rather than your protestations that matter here. Look up WP:MEAT and WP:SPA. Nsk92 (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • In regards to my comments earlier which was said that it had no facts only expressed an opinion. Well if one types John Dwyer in on google it will lead to pages of wikipedia of all the text book publications he has, and of which I recall using during my studies as well. Regarding the guidlines, this states that he is of notable academic due to his textbook publications as well as used literature in courses. --Auggla (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC) (Note: I moved both Auggla notes here from the talk page of the AfD. Both of them had the same capslocked strong keep at the start, but each user only gets to list a single opinion on an AfD, so I left off that part when I moved this second comment. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

Auggla, which textbooks are you talking about? Name them please and provide links to the results of the GoogleSearches you are talking about. If you mean the Algana Associates items listed in his WP entry, here are the GoogleSearch results for them: 1) "Algorithms: An Approach Using Puzzles & Brainteasers": 2 hits on Google, one of which to a Richmod website and another to Dywer's article on Wikipedia [49]; 2) "Speech Processing: An Interdisciplinary Approach": again, 2 hits on Google, one of which to a Richmod website and another to Dywer's article on Wikipedia [50]; "Circuits in Complete Graphs and Their Relations to Rapidly-increasing Special Functions": 7 hits[51], one of which to a website in Ruchmond, one to Dywer's article on Wikipedia and one to the Complete graph page on Wikipedia; the last link was added on April 12, 2008 (see the diff [52]) by an s.p.a IP editor 195.54.243.250 who had also edited Dwyer's wikipedia article. How is all of this evidence of notability? Has there been widespread or at least substantial use of Dywer's "textbooks" in other universities? If yes, please provide evidence of that. Do these "textbooks" even have ISBN numbers? Nsk92 (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• DO NOT DELETE - As a colleague of Dr Dwyer at the Uni, I am astonished that someone with so much (30 plus years) university experience, much of it as a senior academic and Department Chair, should be considered "not notable". Even more astonishing seems to be the fact that a wikipedia editor does not know that the Uni is accredited in the USA and in the UK. Are they supposed to doublecheck before making rash comments? If not, who is double checking the editors? Finally, who says that a long publication record is the only measure of notability - presumably those who have a long publication record but little imagination. Dr Mo Adda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.7.14 (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody says that a long publication record is the only measure of notability. The main and most reliable measure of notability is wide citability of the work of the person in question by other scientists in the field. As I wrote above, having one or two highly cited publications may well be enough to establish notability. Here we seem to have no citations of his work at all in published works by others. Nsk92 (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing at all that has been written in the article or in this discussion indicates any notability. If the subject of the article or his colleagues at the "university" (if any edits have really come from colleagues) had any self-respect they would be arguing for deletion of the article and this AfD discussion. Can't he/they see that the article and this discussion make him/them a laughing stock? I can't imagine any respectable academic institution will employ him after his antics, which will be accessible for a long time on this page via web searches that any prospective employer would undertake, or that anyone would wish to study at an institution that endorses them. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. My views reflect the comment above. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:35, 27 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 Nomination withdrawn and the concerns of the "delete" voters have been answered. (Non-admin) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boggan (disambiguation)

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

Purports to be a disambiguation page but is purely a collection of red links, with no way for anyone to sort out whether any of these might actually be reasonable future article topics. Russ (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Pointless Comment Yikes, red link jackpot! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. It can be recreated when (and if) any of those redlinks actually become blue. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, unneeded. Per WP:MOSDAB#Red links, they should only exist on DAB pages if they are also (a red link) on a real page somewhere. The only entry for which that is true is Tim Boggan, one of the Ping Pong Diplomacy players.[53] He does seem to meet WP:ATHLETE. Once you remove all other entries ... there's no need for an article. I'm not even sure a hatnote is appropriate. --Dhartung | Talk 17:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Question: Would it be worth replacing this with a redirect to Toboggan, as a short form of the word, until such time as the disambiguation is needed? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Boggan is currently an article about a race in a role-playing game. Replacing Boggan (disambiguation) with a rediretc to anywhere seems pretty pointless, becasue nobody is likely to type that into the serachbox. -- saberwyn 22:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Although, between the RPG race, the athlete mentioned by Dhartung, the slhortening/slang of toboggan given by Quadirandom, and a See Also to the slight difference in spelling that is Bogan and Bogan (disambiguation), you cound probably get a working disambig. -- saberwyn 00:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • (Oy -- I didn't even notice the RPG.) I'd support an edit to that. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I've rewritten the disambig by cutting everything, adding Boggan and Tim Boggan as entries, and adding the disambig pages for Toboggan and Bogan. Thoughts? -- saberwyn 01:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quasirandom (talk • contribs)
• Keep, now looks like an acceptable (though minimal) dab page. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• OK, I withdraw the nomination. --Russ (talk) 09:55, 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 (but cleanup). Cbrown1023 talk 19:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural icon

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

The "subject" seems to be little more than a mere collocation: True, an article on it could say that A cultural icon is an icon of culture -- appending to each the parenthesis (whatever this word is used to mean; and these days it's often used to mean very little). For yes, it seems to be more widely used than natural icon, postural icon, plural icon, rural icon, intercrural icon, etc., but so?