Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 27

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

The result was no consensus to delete defaulting to keep (non-admin closure). Interested editors are invited to discuss a merge on the relevant talkpages. Skomorokh 00:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael A. Moon

Michael A. Moon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems marginal, especially for such a small part of his workl. I have already merged what he is "most notable for" into the Chand article, and that seems to work. The other two tidbits can probably be merged into the seperate articles as well. Seems marginal, and the subject requests deletion on otrs:1501807. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, he's a leading attorney in the largest Terrorism investigation in Canadian history, one which made headlines across the world - and was referenced by the administrations of both Tony Blair and George Bush as a grave threat and tremendous operation. He's not the attorney for one of the lackeys, he's the attorney for the alleged leader of a group that intended to storm Parliament, behead the Prime Minister and hold Cabinet members hostage until their demands were met - as well as purchasing Ammonium Nitrate to blow up various targets across Southern Ontario...the allegations may or may not be true, but it's certainly the equivilent of the "OJ Simpson" case - and the attorneys, whether they like it or not, are "public figures", especially the ones who speak to the media.

The article has seen 64 edits by 14 distinct users, including both Moon and Mubin Shaikh, and he's chosen to not only take this case, but involve himself in the Supreme Court hearing of Omar Khadr. Certainly not a non-notable lawyer we're dealing with.

Not that it matters, but if we are going to use an edit analysis for notability, lets do it properly.

User statistics for these edits: Number of users: 17 33.33% IP/anon edits (22 edit(s)) 62.12% other users (41 edit(s)) 3.03% administrator edits (2 edit(s)) 1.52% bot edits (1 edit(s)) Time range: 212 approximate day(s) of edits || 212 approximate day(s) since first edit Most recent edit on: 12:28, 27 April 2008 Oldest edit on: 20:47, 28 September 2007 Current time: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:42:10 UTC Analysis: Notable edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0% (0 edit(s)) Significant edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 0% (0 edit(s)) Superficial edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 24.24% (16 edit(s)) 48.48% marked reverts (any) (32) 42.42% probable reverts of vandalism (28) Unmarked edits: 27.27% (18 edit(s)) Averages: 66.67% edit summary usage Average edits/user: 3.88 0.312 edit(s) per day (current) 0.312 edit(s) per day (since last active) 0.151 marked revert(s) per day (since last active) 1 : 0.94 regular edit to marked revert ratio (RE:RV) 40.91% edit progess (non-reverts/reverted edits) (27 edit(s)) 9.09% of edits by IP-only users are non-reverts/reverted (2 out of 22 edit(s))

Then we ought to include a piece in that article. I don't think this one is notable enough for an article based on the small amount of his work. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It is unclear to me exactly what point the nominator wanted us to conclude with these statistics, above. Geo Swan (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to the above comment by Sherurcij, when s/he said The article has seen 64 edits by 14 distinct users. The point was, there is nothing to infer about these stats, they are meaningless. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: "...but if we are going to use an edit analysis for notability, lets do it properly..." No offense, this does not look like an attempt to "do it properly". Geo Swan (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

None taken. Sorry for the misunderstanding. The edit analysis means nothing, and should not be used in this debate. That was the point I wanted to make. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Per the "subject's request for deletion", he actually trolled WP and threatened to sue its "close-minded, ignorant Wiki-fascists", and has been blocked twice, and called the blocking admin a "closet fascist" who "wants to advance terror". He then proceeded to announce that he was reporting people who work on his article to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (Canada's version of the CIA).(evidence). Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What does the subjects behavior on Wikipedia have to do with this deletion debate? NonvocalScream (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who said he "requested his article be deleted", I'm merely pointing out the context - this wasn't a polite "Excuse me, I believe this article should be deleted", it was a hyperbole-fuelled rant that led to him being blocked twice for threatening users and threatening legal action against WMF, as well as involving Canada's domestic spy agency...people who vote presumably deserve to know the context of his "request". Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets not pee in the water. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to 2006 Toronto terrorism case. Though it's a prominent case, his role is ultimately not as an actor but as an advocate, and almost all the sources are about the case rather than him. --Dhartung | Talk 19:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, not to harrass you - but I want to point out that the majority of lawyers and judges who have articles on WP don't have articles "about them", but about the case in which they're involved. Whether it's Leonie Brinkema or Dennis Edney. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep -- I don't see where this nomination suggests that this article violates any policies. Let's only nominate articles for deletion when they violate policy, OK? What troubles me about this nomination is that it seems to assume that merging related articles is a good idea. One of the most powerful features of modern hypertext systems, like the wikipedia is that they allow readers to wend their own path through the universe of human knowledge. Merging related articles, and then arbitrarily deleting some articles, is, IMO, a very grave disservice to readers. Nominator has no way of knowing whether readers go to the Moon article are going there because they are interested in Chand, or interested in Erhun Candir, or interested in his role in the Omar Khadr case, or interested in his article for himself. Geo Swan (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't normally include biographys on marginally notable people. A good way around this is to merge the article into the notable event, rather than have an article on a non notable person. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't merge them into other biographies. If a "non-notable person saved Mariah Carey from oncoming traffic", we wouldn't include an article on that person - but if a lawyer becomes a public figure in an international terrorism investigation, giving interviews to the media and such, he's certainly not "marginally notable". Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per Dhartung. Source 1 is about him but there's almost nothing there, like at 6. 5 doesn't even mention his name. I don't have access to 7 and 8, but from their titles they also don't seem to be about him. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-27t20:59z

• Merge and redirect per Dhartung. If we keep it as is then I would have to question a lot of the articles that have been deleted about e.g. business people who have had a much wider ranging impact on the lives of people. This guy, in reality, has impact on the life of 1 person, who may, or may not, be the ringleader of a proposed terrorist attack, but that in itself cannot be considered enough to establish notability. PRasmussen (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I see at least 4 major cases with great news coverage. Leading in such cases is what makes lawyers notable. DGG (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect, insufficient sources independent of the investigation, subject requests deletion, WP:NOTEVIL. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• keep per DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Papadopoulos

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

Difficult to verify the assertions, and this one is marginal notable. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Maybe I looked in the wrongs spots, but I failed to find coverage of the article's subject in a reliable, secondary source (or in a primary source, for that matter). fails WP:BIO. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, very nearly a speedy as a non-notable biography. The closest thing I see here to an assertion of notability is that he's the "author of a number of legal articles", and that doesn't really say much - plenty of people have written and published papers, but relatively few of them are well-known for having done so, and Mr. Papadopoulos doesn't appear to be one of them. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability at all. KleenupKrew (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete The notability depends on the articles, the number and importance. It cant be assumed from a Wikipedia bio like this that the work either is or is not significant, and I wouldn't be prepared to !vote without looking for myself. Actually looking, in this case in Google Scholar, as a preliminary, I find 4 or 5. (there are 3 as ssrn) There's an alternate form of the name: . Ioannis Papadopoulos - I don;'t think he's notable yet. As he apparently is 24 years old, that seems reasonable. DGG (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Author had blanked page within a day of creating article, also fails WP:BIO. Paste (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Classic film lines

Classic film lines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

An unencyclopaedic list which could never be comprehensive and could never be neutral depending as it does on subjective interpretations of what is "classic", "well-known", "iconic", "ironic" and "witty". Wikiquote exists for a reason. nancy ^(talk) 15:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Exactly what the nom said. This list could never be comprehensive or neutral. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Probably written by someone new to Wikipedia, so I don't want to be too mean about this. One of the toughest concepts to handle for a newcomer is the bar against "original research", where one creates their own list of items, or comes up with their own theory. While it may seem like a harsh rule, it's one of the better ones here; if everybody compiled their own list of what they consider "classic" anything, the results would be widely different. Even if one were to quote from a published source of "classic film lines" (say, for instance, a top 100 compiled by Entertainment Weekly), it's not a very good topic. We encourage you to contribute. Everything gets published on Wikipedia, but not everything gets to stay on Wikipedia. Don't get too upset when this gets deleted, it's nothing personal. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a repository of quotations. --Lu Ta 15:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Total POV, no way round it.--Tefalstar (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete POV. Probably someone mistaking Wikipedia for Wikiquote (but nonetheless, who decides what lines are "classic" and what ones aren't? Because of that it's also WP:OR) Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Can you handle the truth? What we've got here is failure to communicate. Well, nobody's perfect. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - For the reasons previously stated, although the author of the article should be thanked for citing the sublime Carry on Cleo on the list.Ecoleetage (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no possibility of this list ever being complete, comprehensive, or neutral. - Chardish (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Impossible to judge in an encyclopedic context what "classic" is. This is why we don't have anything at classic songs, classic movies, classic TV, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as an indiscriminate list with POV / OR problems. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Of all the AfD lists in all the wikis in all of the world, this article had to walk into this one. Delete - hardly an encyclopedic list at present, and with the current title, hardly likely ever to be. Hell, any list of "classic film lines" that fails to mention "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" ain't worth a damn. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• We're gonna need a bigger Delete JuJube (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• This article can serve no purpose Delete - per everyone. Lugnuts (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I don't know what we're yelling about! JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Over the seven jewelled hills, beyond the seventh fall, in the cottage of the Seven Dwarfs, dwells Snow White, fairest of them all... WilliamH (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of objective criteria and in-depth analysis of such quotes. Wikiquote is more suitable for this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to TravelTalkRADIO. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TravelTalkMEDIA

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

nn web site related to nn travel radio show Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: we already got to articles on this subject. Dwilso 15:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to TravelTalkRADIO] which is the logical, notable place for this information. - Dravecky (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge as above. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. TravelTalkMEDIA has been merged to this article apparently.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TravelTalkRADIO

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

nn travel radio show Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, but clean it up. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as it's both apparently notable and the subject of independent direct coverage by reliable secondary sources. Needs cleanup and a few more sources would be nice but it crosses the threshold for verifiability and notability. - Dravecky (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to TravelTalkRADIO TravelTalkMEDIA --Rtphokie (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Um, huh? - Dravecky (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: sorry, typo, it's been corrected above.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply Ah, on an ironic note, I just recommended that TravelTalkMEDIA be merged into TravelTalkRADIO before reading your reply. - Dravecky (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) The consensus below is that the article subject is verifiably notable. Darkspots (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sandy Dhuyvetter

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

nn host of travel radio show Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into the TravelTalkRADIO article. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as subject hosts internationally syndicated program, is the focus of reliable secondary sources, and meets notability and verifiability tests. - Dravecky (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep notable enough, well referenced, DHS committee membership helps this article meet WP:BIO.--Rtphokie (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficient reliable sources exist to establish notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notable EMC Personalities

Notable EMC Personalities (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Poor article title, will not be more than a stubby list, not a notable topic for WP, irretrievable stub (?) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 15:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Very short list and most likely irretrievable. Four of the five entries are red links and the fifth is most likely a dab page. No context either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Ten Pound Hammer. As it stands now, the article is not useful at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:15, 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 --JForget 23:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Larry the Lizard

Larry the Lizard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Children's book. The author of the article denies that the book is either of two already in print, but does not provide an ISBN or other reference. So I assume it is MADEUP. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I can find no evidence that a book by this name, by Patrick Schiller and Max Newton, has ever been published. It may well have been "created", but it certainly lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. --Lu Ta 14:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Lu Ta, I can't find any evidence that the book exists, nor can I find any online store that sells it. No ISBN number, looks like a hoax. Trusilver 15:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is cruel to call it an hoax. I am perfctly willing to believe it exists - just one copy - the original! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: The book doesn't exist, as state above. Dwilso 15:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons above. What's intriguing is that there have been lots of authors who thought of creating a character called "Larry the Lizard", decades before "the idea was first thought of during the early year of 2006 by authors Patrick Schiller and Max Newton". This shows that it's been done, with Larry being either an allegorical amphibian, or a human "lounge lizard". None of these books seems to have had any impact, so "Larry the Lizard" keeps getting re-invented. That's interesting, albeit not interesting enough to merit an article. Mandsford (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non existant book. Soxred93 (u t) 16:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It doesn't matter whether the subject exists or not; the question is whether or not its notable enough for inclusion; obviously, it isn't, given the severe lack of sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete bad photoshop book cover tells me 'hoax'. JuJube (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Same reasons above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable if not a hoax. Editorofthewiki^{review my edits here!} 00:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Employment References

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

Nonencyclopedic article. Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide. Unreferenced, original research. Evb-wiki (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - article is largely a copy of this, but in the edit summary the originator claims that he is the author and it is his website, so copyright issues should be resolvable. However the article is original research, citing no independent sources; and Wikipedia is not a how-to manual or guide. JohnCD (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Nothing encyclopedic here. JJL (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per original research. Pushing an agenda, leaning towards spam, and factually incorrect WRT UK law. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Independent Source: http://jobsearch.about.com/od/referencesrecommendations/a/referencetips.htm Dwrjr (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Too much original research, doesn't even seem accurate. --Tefalstar (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:55, 30 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. Hut 8.5 12:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dumitru Copil

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

Previously PRODded, now recreated. The subject is a Romanian youth player currently contracted with Hearts of Midlothian (Scotland). The subject clearly fails WP:ATHLETE per lack of professional appearances. Angelo (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 13:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - straightforward non-notability in Wiki terms as he has not played professionally. Springnuts (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. BanRay 17:47, 28 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 Jailbait (disambiguation). Sandstein (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jailbait

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

Delete simple dicdef. Possibly redirect to Lolita (term) Jailbait (disambiguation) after deletion. Previous keep arguments three years ago were based on the idea that the article could be expanded, but it has not been and doesn't seem to be expandable. See old VFD here [16].Ave Caesar (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - this is Wictionary stuff. Springnuts (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete ...and it's already in Wiktionary. JohnCD (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment why not simply redirect to Jailbait (disambiguation)? There are a number of movies with this title in the disambiguation page. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep/merge There is lots to say about this as the sources indicate. Much of it may be covered by articles such as statutory rape but the sources seem to cover other aspects of juvenile delinquency. Anyway, it is an obvious search term and so should be kept as a redirect at least. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to the disambiguation page. (And add Lolita (term) to the disambig page). Bfigura ^(talk) 23:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect per Bfigura. JuJube (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Important concept, isn't covered exactly by either Lolita or Ephebophilia. Maybe expand article to discuss age of consents.Ask D.N.A.- Peter Napkin (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect; disambiguation seems to be the best way to go here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to disambiguation page. —Qit el-Remel (talk • contribs) 10:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect I don't see how this article could be expanded in sensible way. RockyMM (talk) 13:53, 30 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. Black Kite 22:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Brink

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

This appears to be an advertisement for a minor program on a Hobart radio station. I can't see anything notable about it. Grahame (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete This article and a related entry on Ben Waterworth appear to have been conceived by the same author, appear to be self-promotion and are not notable. Murtoa (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep this article and the related article on Ben Waterworth as this is as relevant as any other page on a radio show, it is a show that serves the community and is relevant to the city of Hobart. The citizens of Hobart rely on it for information. In no way has the author written this as an 'advertisement', simply as a biography on the show and one of the hosts, which is completely relevant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.6.9 (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - this and most of the articles on contemporary shows at appear to be self referent with little or no reasonable third party sources - I would suggest a short close of this afd - and a review of all the arts - as to whether the others get off scott free sets a precendent where bias against one and there has not been a look at the others within the category - SatuSuro 05:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable show, cannot find online sources. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. A program on a college/community radio station cannot have sufficient notability without independent coverage from reliable sources. I see none here. Similarly, I see a lack of coverage of Ben Waterworth; so that article needs major improvement in a hurry before it also goes through AfD. B.Wind (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Closed as speedy keep -- bad faith nomination by a competitor. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indeed.com

Indeed.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

procedural listing of incomplete AfD; article was tagged for AfD by IP. I may comment later. Darkspots (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Article should be deleted as the content is self-promotional and external links are not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.101.40.60 (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Note to Closing Admin: 137.101.40.60 has been blocked repeatedly for spamming a blacklisted domain. I believe this is a bad faith nomination to delete an article that is considered "competition."¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:07, 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 --JForget 23:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic Baby

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

This article is about a one-time supergroup that performed a single song in 1993. While both U2 and R.E.M. are both notable groups, the fact that the played one song together in the past and called it "Automatic Baby" is not. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - while the song is not notable, the supergroup is per WP:MUSIC, #6. In addition, the group's performance was "aired" globally on MTV, garnering independent coverage worldwide. B.Wind (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep - As per WP:MUSIC, point 6. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 12:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep - As above, point 6 should cover this. --Tefalstar (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - agree with comments above PRasmussen (talk) 10:49, 28 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. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Fraser (DJ)

Chris Fraser (DJ) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, unreferenced one sentence article with external links that anyone can create. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - Not compliant with WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC whatsoever. asenine ^t/_c\^r (fc: f2abr04) 12:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It needs some work, but it shouldn't be deleted, and certainly not speedied. A Google search shows that Fraser is notable. He has a biography on, among other sites, Australian Music Online, and a profile of his album on Music Australia. Deletion is not the next step. PeterSymonds | talk 16:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 05:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --Bduke (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly having a profile on Australian Music Online does not establish notability for Wikipedia.--Grahame (talk) 10:40, 29 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 21:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 8monkey Labs

8monkey Labs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article fails to meet the notability guidelines. It amounts to an announcement that this company will soon release Darkest of Days. That article, in turn, amounts to an announcement that Darkest of Days is a game which will soon be released by 8monkey Labs. Neither of them has any real content. 007bistromath (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per john Potatoswatter (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

::Added Darkest of Days to this newly relisted debate. Delete and log links point to 8monkey Labs. Potatoswatter (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Darkest of Days has already survived an AfD only yesterday. JohnCD (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• oops. Best luck to them getting their first game out. Potatoswatter (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - company not notable as yet, whereas Darkest of Days should be kept as there seems to be a large amount of interest in this game from the global gaming community. The company could be deemed notable if the game becomes a large sales success and they're able to follow it up. PRasmussen (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Darkest of Days for now. If the company achieves notable success the redirect can be removed, but for now it should redirect to their initial title.
• Delete per WP:NOTABLE. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Havards

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

This is original research, verging on advertising. I can find no independent confirmation. The link provided is to a web-site run by the Warren Ward who is said to have discovered "havards"; I can't find any mention of "havards" there, but the website has pages for various diseases, the cure for which turns out to be "ActivSignal^TM Sodium, a new invention of Warren Ward". JohnCD (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete WP:OR.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 11:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• It's better to WP:PROD and article only an hour old created as a first edit. But yeah, far as I can tell this is of dubious merit. Potatoswatter (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as promotional sounding original research. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Citations added. This activity of ducts is well known to biologists and the name is descriptive —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montepoeta (talk • contribs) 09:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• reference to Ward and web site reference removed to avoid suggestion of advertising —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montepoeta (talk • contribs) 10:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as original research and neologism. Active homeostasis exists, but the references do not appear to support the usage of this term in anatomy or biology. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The only appearance in Medline is as a typo for hazards. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and the comments of Eldereft and Espresso Addict. No mention of this term seems to exist anywhere in the published scientific literature. Medline and WoS produce no positives and GoogleScholar produces only false positives as well[17]. As a test, I downloaded the first reference listed, the article of Tomas Ganz in "Nature Reviews: Immunology". The term "havards" is never mentioned there and the word "duct" does not appear there even once either. Apart from WP:OR there are basic WP:V problems with this entry. Moreover, even if one or two published reliable sources are eventually uncovered, it is clear that the subject fails WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW -Djsasso (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Global censorship of Youth's books

Global censorship of Youth's books (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Global censorship of books for children. The ugly title could easily be fixed. But is it oroginal research? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete a original research essay. We already have a few similar articles that says the same things slightly better Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 12:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per Doc Strange -- clearly a rambling OR essay.Doug Weller (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as it is a total rowing utensil. JuJube (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Do NOT Delete This is a draft for course. Please leave unaltered until May 15, 2008. Thanks. pvh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.9.9 (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Someone hasn't read WP:Wikipedia is not a place to store drafts for a courseDoug Weller (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete original research is prohibited on Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 20:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - As obvious OR material. Enigma ^message 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR. While it is a student's project, this seems to be beyond cleanup at present. (No prejudice against a well-written and policy-compliant recreation though). Bfigura ^(talk) 21:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• The article, in its present form, should probably be deleted. Nothing to say a well referenced and article-style section couldn't be included in Censorship though. Avruch ^T 21:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Nakon 21:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - This is clearly synthesis, which, while entirely desirable in an academic essay, is not permitted on Wikipedia. Aleta ^Sing 22:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - not compliant with wikipedia policies, specifically WP:OR. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Pay for your webhosting Like the rest of us. Smite and salt. ThuranX (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - good as a class essay, but not as a Wikipedia article. There's just not enough prior (read: non-original) research on the subject. --clpo13_(talk) 00:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as an OR essay. Grsz^talk 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I say! WP:OR and all that. X Marx The Spot (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per the above, as original research. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think it's snowing. Bfigura ^(talk) 06:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Bible Quiz. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MACSA Bible Quizzing

MACSA Bible Quizzing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, apparently non-notable local quiz competition. Black Kite 10:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Condense and Merge to Bible quiz. That article already has several summaries of such organizations. Quick Googling turned up many participants and no news articles. Potatoswatter (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Downsize and merge per above. It will be a welcome addition to that article. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 13:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per the above. Probably some content worth keeping, but not enough to justify a separate article. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:10, 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Some of the earlier "delete" commentators do not seem to have taken into account the sources provided before the relisting. Personally, I find DGG's assessment as a librarian persuasive and recommend that it be taken into account in any later deletion discussion. Sandstein (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Votescam: The Stealing of America

Votescam: The Stealing of America (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Book and its authors are not notable It is me i think (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

delete It is me i think (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: No references provided, and also too much personal opinions. Dwilso 06:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources and a non-notable book. The article claims "The book was banned at major book chains", but does not list which ones to back up the statement. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 11:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete ...and who published the book? Does it have an ISBN? Did some book chains resist the conspiracy and sell the book anyway? Etc. Mandsford (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Publisher and ISBN are now in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable references are provided.--Berig (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable self-published book. I am about to nominate Kenneth Collier for deletion too. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. already covered above. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: The mass market paperback doesn't crack four MILLION on Amazon's rankings (http://www.amazon.com/Votescam-Stealing-james-M-Collier/dp/B000W3V93M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208875955&sr=8-1).  RGTraynor  14:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Actually, for what it's worth, it's ranked #463,361 [18]. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: No reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I make that 9 editors so far who can't even be bothered to do a simple Google Books search before commenting. In the very first hit Gore Vidal devotes 5 pages to discussing this book - non-notable books don't get that sort of treatment - and the other hits also show substantial coverage. And what have Amazon ratings got to do with this? How many books did they sell in 1992? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This book was not on any bestseller lists in 1992 either, nor published by a major publisher, nor the subject of widespread coverage in WP:RS such as The New York Times or CBS News. Mention in 7 fringe conspiracy books doesn't cut it. Nor does Gore Vidal particularly meet WP:RS. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I can't find anything in the NYT or CBS, but The Miami Herald had a 1401 word article (I hope that writer got paid for the odd one) in 1993 and I found another reference in a book by Douglas Kellner. I don't accept the statement about Gore Vidal not being a reliable source. We're not arguing the merits of the book's thesis here, but notability. The fact that major writers such as Gore Vidal and Douglas Kellner have noted the book makes it notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Relisting to allow editors to discuss the sources found by Phil Bridger after other delete opinions have been made. Davewild (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. If Gore Vidal thinks it's woth five pages, I think that establishes notability. Klausness (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Since deletion process commenced, this article has been improved with sourcing which meets WP:BK. IMHO, Gore Vidal, Miami Herald, and Douglas Kellner meet WP:RS criteria. BusterD (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - my view hasn't changed and remains delete. This is a self-published book that has never had significant sales or influence. Gore Vidal and Douglas Kellner are notable in their own right but do not meet WP:RS as a source on unrelated topics. The Miami Herald article was a one time human interest story on an unknown congressional candidate from 1970 and his continuing quixotic crusade to claim vote fraud in his 1970 primary loss to Claude Pepper, which is what this book is. The book has never been the subject of widespread nor continuing coverage or relevance. I also notice the Miami Herald article is dated 1983, while this book was not published until 1992. KleenupKrew (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Of course it is NOT going to get such coverage. From the article, "The book was immediately banned by the major book chains, who listed the book as "out of print" and actively worked to prevent its sale." IT IS A CONSPIRACY. SYSS Mouse (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: The coverage cited shows notability. Nick Graves (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge content with appropriate article regarding US voting system (especially about election controversies) SYSS Mouse (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. As the editor who has done the most to defend this article I must say that even a delete decision would be better than such a merge. This article is about a book, not about the subject matter of the book. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per sources given. I'm kind of disturbed that editors participating in a deletion discussion can't be bothered to check the notability of the subject. In any case, there's plenty of material written regarding the subject, and that constitutes notability for me. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep notability established. Hope all those previous delete editors take note and learn to use {{find}} rather then repeating parrot fashion what has gone before, it rather brings the Afd process into disrepute. SunCreator (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete the overall subject of vote fraud may be notable, but not the book. I am unwilling to believe in the reality of the suppression of the book--according to OCLC WOrldCat, its in about 60 public libraries and about 20 academic, but not the really major ones. That's too many for suppression and not enough for importance. Just what would be expected for an attempted popular book that didn't take off. There's no reason even to merge the content--even the supporter of the article opposes that-- not significant enough to be even mentioned at Wikipedia. I note the "publisher" Victoria Press is an apparently unsuccessful volunteer group trying to raise money to become notable--named after an actual Suffragette printer of the earlier 20th century. Like the book, they apparently didn't succeed. Phil, could you summarize just what Vidal says about it (not that his use of this for some reason makes it notable any more than any other reference he might choose to use.) I'm pretty open minded on book articles but this is way below the bar. DGG (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:04, 30 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. I also note that the only source in the article, the MySpace link, is broken. Pigman☿ 04:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In the Pictures

In the Pictures (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Based on the text in the article, this fails WP:MUSIC as a non-notable song that should be redirected to the album article. I attempted to do so but was reverted. I therefore put this to AfD. Erechtheus (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2008

• Keep - She has confirmed that this will be a future single. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable song, apparently yet to be released (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball), only citation is a MySpace page. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and Salt or Redirect and Protect. No proof of independent notability, and not enough material to justify a separate article anyway. Nick Graves (talk) 19:28, 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 merge to Operation Backfire (FBI), which seems to have been done already. Although the consensus is not entirely clear, this seems to be most in keeping with WP:BLP1E and would address most arguments made here. Sandstein (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chelsea Dawn Gerlach

Chelsea Dawn Gerlach (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Negative BLP for single-non-notable crime. Sources all discuss crime. Not seeing lasting notability. MBisanz ^talk 10:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLP1E, not otherwise notable KleenupKrew (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect salient details to Earth Liberation Front. Black Kite 14:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 15:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Earth Liberation Front as failing notability. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The crime is relatively notable (though likely not enough for a separate article), but the criminal as an individual is not. If a whole article on this individual in a reliable, national publication were cited, I would begin to reconsider. Nick Graves (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to ELF. The information here is probably worth keeping as a bullet point or two in that article. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep multiple major crimes, significant "environmental protection" arsonist. There was a single trial on multiple counts of destrucction of unrelated facilities in several different states. Not ONEEVENTDGG (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Multiple events and can't merge into one article since she was a player in two organizations as well as the FBI program to capture her. She has internal links to three articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Richard Arthur Norton . Edison (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not every perp deserves a fan page on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.157.14 (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• keep per Arthur and DGG. This isn't BLP1E. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Question: I still only see one event mentioned in the article. Multiple crimes, certainly, but all part of the same spree. What am I missing? Nick Graves (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: -- Richard Arthur Norton merged this into Operation Backfire (FBI) several days ago. I completed the process by placing a redirect in the original article. -- Tom Ketchum 18:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge -- I suppose the above makes me vote this way -- Tom Ketchum 18:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Merge to the Operation Backfire article. WP:NOT#NEWS is pretty clear. Tarc (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• As of now, the article only contains materials about the crime; there is no biographical info or at least some expected info about activities as an environmentalist (I'm also unable to find any online sources about this). So, merge and redirect to Operation Backfire (FBI), which is fitting better than the organizations' articles since she is associated with two as pointed out above. Should new references (about the person) come up in the future, we may discuss resurrecting the page then; right now, it is only an events-article, not a biography. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect, action taken by TheslB was perfectly reasonable.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Southeastern U.S. earthquakes of 2003

Southeastern U.S. earthquakes of 2003 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable topic (the two earthquakes that occurred in 2003 in the southeastern United States are unrelated), not useful as a disambig page since the earthquakes can be directly linked, and no article uses it as such (no links to this article for disambig purposes). TheslB (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Both articles were originally on one page, and it was split into two, with the result that the history is at the original title. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Would there be a way to integrate the history into one of the other articles? Edits on the article prior to 01:35, 10 May 2006 could be prefixed to 2003 Virginia earthquake's original version without chronology problems, if technically feasible. TheslB (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's probably what should have been done, as the page is not useful as a disambiguation page (because the earthquakes are unrelated). --Snigbrook ^(talk) 12:52, 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, Davewild (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No article space links here except alternate spelling redirects. If you're worried about history then randomly convert to redirect, noting at talk pages. Potatoswatter (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  Redirected to List of earthquakes in the United States. Any objections? If not, I will go ahead and note at the two earthquakes' talk pages. TheslB (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. One incident does not make someone notable, per WP:NOT#NEWS, and the sources are suspicious. (For the record, a correctly-formatted Google search for him returns only 37 hits, but that was not a factor in my assessment of consensus.) - KrakatoaKatie 04:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jagadguru Kripalu Ji Maharaj

Jagadguru Kripalu Ji Maharaj (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

• 'Deleteweak keep No sufficient or verifiable claims of notability except for the self published sources. Guru advertisement with references to own sources. Wikidās ॐ 09:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If you changed your vote from Delete to Weak Keep due to this individual's criminal record, then I do not believe it is a worthy arguement. A person's criminal record and/or the accusations against them have little weight as there are many criminals and/or persons accused of crimes. Aside from this point, I believe that this individual is non notable and that the sources are very suspect. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well I've never read an encyclopedic article about someone who was famous for being accused of a crime. And in this case, it doesnt satisfy wikipedia notability. 38.99.101.180 (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Strong & Speedy Delete - All references are self published and materials are WP:OR. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 10:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Changed my opinion to Strong & speedy delete because a google search redirected me to videos & nonsense self published results, hardly 10 ghits, I dont know why it has survivied so long. He is also a notorious rapist as accused of it by a follower. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• So Wikipedia articles are only for nice, pleasant people? Better get rid of the article on that Mr. Hitler fellow, then. You say he's a "notorious" rapist, which, if your statement is true, would ipso facto make him suitable for an article. "Hardly 10 ghits" - funny, I see a bit over 700. --Badger Drink (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• If he is a notable rapist guru, I would have changed my opinion. He is not only non-notable, but also notorious in one incident, an accusation of a nn rape incident either. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 16:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I also support a Strong and Speedy Deletion. Anyone disagree? 205.240.11.90 (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• The article no longer quotes self published material. 74.85.13.60 (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing my opinion to Delete. The common consensus is that the page isnt suitable for an encyclopaedia and that its sort of an advertisement. There are some minor references but they leave alot of primary issues unanswered. I have some Hindi news articles but they are not online. We should consider the suggestion of starting an article in the hindi language section? 74.85.13.60 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Harjk, Can you stop vandalizing the article? Otherwise you should say which part you consider refers to self-published material or original research... If noone can give a reason to delete the article, its not being deleted.
• I am removing the tag. No one has yet given a reason for deleting it. If the wiki page needs changing, then change it yourself, or say whats wrong with it. What is the protocol for repeated abuse of the deletion tag? 86.40.100.198 (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

74.85.13.60 (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting your edits. Dont remove AfD tag until the discussion is over. That's our policy. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 14:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - The person does seem to be somewhat notable at least in the sense of being a sort of "spiritual teacher". Although ghits != notability, Google Searches do show him to be mentioned in connection with several (religious and social) organizations. I think the we should give some opportunity to let the article be improved with some WP:RSes. He also seems to lead an organization that has created hospitals in India. I've been hard pressed to find any news articles on him other than this which looks like an editorial/opinion piece of some sort. If more reliable sources can be found, then the article might merit inclusion. --vi5in^[talk] 15:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Changing to Keep. As the sources show below, he is definitely notable. However, the sources need to be examined to see if they meet WP:RS. --vi5in^[talk] 17:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Changed my opinion to Kill with fire. see the reason. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Closing admin's notice: All references below are not independent of the subject. Many of them doesn't even saying about him. It is more or less lying. This swami is only notable for his rape of a fellow follower. It seems User:Vivin is trying to mislead participants getting more favourite votes for keep. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 18:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't say I'm trying to mislead people. I've stated my opinion and provided my reasons for doing so. I have no vested interest in this article I don't want to get involved in a pissing match. I'm not going to respond to anything unrelated to this discussion from now on. --vi5in^[talk] 18:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• noticeThere could be a simple case of misunderstanding on what is notable and what is reliable. Just because someone is notable and a disciple of some guru, that does not make that guru notable. In all the sources I have seen he is mentioned, not as a leader, head of something but as guru - there are thousands gurus, how does it make him notable? If he was 'actually' what you say about him, you will see many articles about HIM personally, not just about his friends who happen to mention his name (that appears to be written differently every time). Show us ONE reliable source that state: Jagadguru Kripaluji Maharaj is supreme acharya of this age, called supreme among jagatgurus. One link to a reliable source stating this simple fact will clear it up. So far its just an ad. You of course should understand that Archives of Kashi Vidvat Parishat, Kashi, India is not WP:RS. None of the sources, even TV ones checks out. So far nothing checks out to prove him what the article claims, except that he is a guru, which in itself not WP:NOTE. Maybe if the article is deleted, it can be created again, this time using what is actually WP:RS. I mean one link to New York Times or Indian Times article supporting the claims will do for me. Wikidās ॐ 19:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:*Agreed. He is not my Guru... I support a quick and speedy deletion. 205.240.11.90 (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

--- I would suggest the following:

• It resembles a fan site. Tagged since April 2008. -

remove honorifics, move it to Swami Kripalu Ji with explanation that he also is using honorifics.

• Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since April 2008. Somehow it was deleted

write less about his titles and more about what he said and what was 'exactly' said about him in the above list of references (some of them can be reliable, I did not check all). Academic sources and major newspapers are preferential, see WP:RS.

• It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since April 2008.

As long as you actually link every paragraph to relevant WP:RS there should be no dispute.

• It may violate Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Tagged since April 2008.

Controversial material should be ONLY reliable sources, no your own words or quotes without RS.

• It reads like a personal reflection or essay. Tagged since April 2008.

Its mainly because the tone. One also needs to address the issue of completely original spelling. Such as Krishn instead of Krishna, Jeev instead of Jiva - wikilink them to the articles.

• It reads like an advertisement and needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. Tagged since April 2008.

Tone it down, comparing him to Vallabhacharya or Ramanujacharya should be (if at all) done in a neutral tone, even if his is your guru.

• It describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style that may require cleanup. Tagged since April 2008.

His philosophy should be referenced and linked to relevant pages and/or have proper references. He did not create it - but it appears he did.

• It is an autobiography, or has been extensively edited by the subject, and may not conform to NPOV policy.

Remove the items that are partial and keep it in a sober encyclopedia tone.

• It may contain improper references to self-published sources. Tagged since April 2008.

Remove references from his own books that support claims that are not supported by other evidence.

These are my suggestions as far as the article. I have not changed my opinion on the article as it stands. Wikidās ॐ 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Clearly notability has been shown. The newspaper articles quoted mostly predate the allegations. Otherwise, the article is sourced correctly. I am confused why this issue is even being discussed. 86.45.206.161 (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• 'note Found some evidence of notability, mainly due to rape publicity. I do not believe that he was ever proven guilty, but there is a lot of media about it, and I do not think that at 85 he 'can' rape, so that is notable. I have changed to weak keep, based on that and some of book references and that the article should be moved to 'Kripaluji Maharaj' - Jagatguru is a title and makes it hard to find notable reference in google if run by it, mainly fan sites, it should be explained in the article and redirect will work fine. Wikidās ॐ 14:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Everyone submit your vote (YES or NO) for a deletion: 205.240.11.90 (talk)

Yes. 205.240.11.90 (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. 86.40.196.166 (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. His name may be mentioned here and there, not enough to warrant wikipedia notability though. I haven't heard of him. 74.85.13.51 (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

AfDs are not votes. You must provide policy and guideline-based rationales for your opinions. Corvus cornix_talk 22:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete Non notable individual. Also, sources very questionable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - non notable. It is difficult to know this guy's name from the article entry, as two of the four words are honorifics and/or titles, and even the links point to several different names for him. If he is notable, let's start with what is actual name is, not his titles. It may be that independent sources can be found that support notability, but several different searches in university databases under "philosophy and religion" and "quick search" yield no hits. I'm prepared to change my opinion, but I'd need a real name. Presidents, prime ministers, senators, etc. are listed under their own names - not their titles. I'm not saying he's not a great guy with a bunch of followers. There's a local rabbi who has been the leader of the congregation since 1978, and he doesn't have a wikipedia page. He is well-respected, a great guy, smart, accomplished...and no wikipedia article. He's just not sufficiently notable...and the same applies to the article referenced in this AfD. In response to the box at the top of this article, I was not solicited to view this page; it's on the list of the 10 oldest AfD articles.  Frank  |  talk  00:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, personally i have heard of him. My only concern is that he appears to go by many different names by different people, even in the links on the page. If there are pages in other languages (like hindi) that clear up this confusion, there should be an article in the Hindi wikipedia. My conclusion: delete for now, but of course if someone else can come up with a reliable article later on, they can contribute. And no, i wasnt solicited to say this. 38.99.101.180 (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as erroneous dab page now superseded by Poynting. Unlikely search term, so no redirect. Sandstein (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poyting (crater)

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

This is a disambiguation page which is disambiguating between nothing and nothing. Disambiguation pages are meant to allow readers to find an article from a group of articles we have, and we have no articles on any craters called Poyting. I can't find any evidence, via a google search, that there even is any crater anywhere named Poyting. Xyzzyplugh (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete We don't have disambiguation pages when there's nothing to disambiguate. --Lu Ta 08:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. There appear to be lunar and Martian craters named Poynting (after John Henry Poynting) rather than Poyting. The lunar crater has its own article, but the Martian one doesn't. I'm not too familiar with the guidelines on dab pages; should there be one when there are two entries and one is a redlink? Alternatively, does the Martian crater deserve its own article? AnturiaethwrTalk 10:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• (Reply to first question) No. Disambiguation pages are for navigating between existing articles. --Lu Ta 10:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• • It seems we have a number of pages relating to John Henry Poynting. Poynting vector, Poynting-Robertson effect, Poynting effect, Poynting's theorem, Poynting (lunar crater), 11063 Poynting. It would be reasonable to have a disambiguation page on this. It would obviously not be named Poyting (crater), or anything-crater. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• There is now a disambiguation page for this purpose: Poynting. --Lu Ta 10:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• A quick search of the Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature shows Anturiaethwr is correct. The title of this page should be Poynting (crater), if it is kept. I'm not sure whether the Martian crater should have an article, I need to trawl through the journals again. MER-C 10:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Poynting (lunar crater), which I just did :v) . If someone creates the Mars crater article, it can be redirected to Poynting instead, which also includes an asteroid. Potatoswatter (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#R3 (a recently created redirect from an implausible typos or misnomer) now that the dab page issue has been settled properly elsewhere and the article under discussion has been turned into a redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 29 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 as not a BLP; I managed to find a few brief non-poker references whilst looking at this (i.e. [19]) which leads me to suggest that, although on the borderline of notability, this one just scrapes in. YMMV, of course. Black Kite 22:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brandi Hawbaker

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

Overall fails WP:N as her "notability" derived from her infamy due to several controversial events involving poker professionals (i.e. (BLP REMOVED) sexually assaulting her, scamming Gavin Griffin, getting paid by Full Tilt Poker for a picture of their logo over one of her breasts, posting nude pictures of herself online). Considering Brandi committed suicide there is no chance of notability increasing beyond these drama-fodder events that have largely played out on internet forums. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, yet another crime/gossip article on a non-notable person. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Multiple reliable sources included in the article indicate notability. Rray (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What reliable sources? A blog, a "mob poker database", and cardplayer.com? KleenupKrew (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, those are the reliable sources I was referring to. CardPlayer is the oldest and most respected magazine in the poker field, the Hendon Mob website is a well-respected source for poker information that is used in hundreds of poker articles, and the blog is a news feed from Bodog, a large corporation. (i.e. It's not just some personal blog.) Your lack of familiarity with those sources does not equate to them not being reliable sources. Rray (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
      • None of those sources is notable enough to establish the basis for an article in an encyclopedia. Searches on "Brandi Hawbaker site:cnn.com", "Brandi Hawbaker site:nytimes.com", "Brandi Hawbaker site:washingtonpost.com" all come up with 0 hits. A general Google search on Brandi Hawbaker has the top two hits on YouTube and the next two on Blogspot, almost all other hits on poker gossip forums and blogs, and nothing that I can see from the mainstream media, a sure sign of being Not Notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I appreciate the point you're making, but I think the consensus about what constitutes notability differs somewhat from the rather strict interpretation you've provided with your examples. (I'd say that what comes up first in Google in a search has little relevance to a subject's notability, for example. A lack of coverage in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN doesn't disqualify someone from being notable in their field either.) And one of the principles of Wikipedia is that we combine a traditional encyclopedia with the concept of specialized encyclopedias; it would be difficult to build a specialized poker encyclopedia without considering Cardplayer, for example, to be a reliable source. Rray (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
        • The sources are clearly reliable. CNN isn't an issue here, or with most niche-famous people. 2005 (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
          • The sources are reliable, but they do not illustrate notability. Nearly every poker player who has ever cashed in a live poker tournament has a page on hendonmob, the cardplayer article refers to her as a cult figure on online poker forums which is not indicative of notability either, and the third (written during her life) simply states she is a controversial figure and that the only source for the controversies are her own word. Yes, these are standard cites for poker articles, but that's because nearly every other poker article is about the persons notable contributions and accomplishments in poker, this articles notability derives from a girl who happened to be a poker player that caused drama. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Cardplayer.com is a pretty solid source; the other two aren't particularly useful for establishing notability. However, this woman's antics were widely noticed in the poker world, so that pushes it over the bar for me. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep I am on the fence on this one and could go either way, but I lean towards "keep" because the subject is noted in secondary sources relevant to the subject matter. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keepbecause it is not only the person, but also the reaseon for her death, which is kind of important. I guess it is a wake-up call for many to pay attention to mental illnesses. I plead strongly to keep it.(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. If she had not committed suicide it would probably be a delete, but she clearly meets the WP:V and WP:N. The article has three reliable sources, with one unquestionable. Additionally nominator incorrectly posits that "infamy" is not notability. This is false. Policy has nothing against Paris Hilton-like infamy. Silly, weird, crazy or eccentric drama-magnets can be notable by the same criteria as more sensible people. Finally, there is no doubt she is notable in the more general sense -- there are thousands of non-relaible mentions, and forum threads concerning her have hundreds of thousands of page views, as well as being a very popular google search term. 2005 (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • To me (and the way I believe WP:N is meant to relate to) this all adds up to something that should be on encyclopedia dramatica, not wikipedia. Do I doubt the reliability of the sources? No, but just because something is verifiable, or even true, does not make it notable. –– Lid^(Talk) 22:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The operative guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (people), which makes clear that "dramatica" is perfectly acceptable: "significant, interesting, or unusual enough..." Unuusual certainly covers this person, and also obviously huge numbers of people find the events "interesting", even if some of us don't. She has been "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Not everyone peculiar deserves an article, but if a person achieves near Paris-like levels of independent notice, then dramatica can merit an article. One other comment, Lid, for WP:BLP reasons I'd suggest you remove the name before "sexually" in your original nomination and say "someone". 2005 (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Except it goes onto include this section "Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." –– Lid^(Talk) 22:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
        • And the article does exactly that. It doesn't go into the various weirdness. It says though she committed suicide, which a reliable source quotes the Coroner's office to confirm. 2005 (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
          • And the article does not seem to include any real notability outside that fact. Yes she committed suicide, but committing suicide does not make her notable when she was unnotable for the same acts while still alive. –– Lid^(Talk) 23:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
            • She meets the guideline. I'd agree that the guideline could be tougher, and that thousands of relatively trivia bio articles really should be deleted from the encyclopedia, but that is a discussion for the guideline page. But then also, perhaps a person suffering from mental illness may not have deserved an article when alive, but suicide is a significant development which does impact here. The phenomenon of weird behavior - extremely nasty societal over-reaction - suicide... there is a whole story here, not isolated parts. 2005 (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
              • The whole story doesn't really add up either. Cutting out the poker association, which did not make her notable while alive, the article becomes "Mentally ill girl commits suicide after being taunted on the internet". I do not think an article of that description really has a place here. Yes, I know I am seemingly being contrary to everyone else here in this discussion so far but I am not trying to overturn the notability guidelines - it's a controversial deletion and such controversial discussions are going to end up having arguments from both sides interpretting their side of the debate. –– Lid^(Talk) 23:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per nominator. I know it sounds odd, but the nominator has just given tons of information about the subject, all of which is verifiable in reliable sources. All of that suggests, to the contrary, that she is quite notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have to admit, out of all the possible keep points I expected to occur during this afd, this wasn't one of them. –– Lid^(Talk) 23:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, seems to just barely meet WP:Notability (people). Lots of google hits too. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete per SmartGuy - Very borderline Notability that just falls under (removed previous comments)▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 22:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete and weak mainly because it's just my opinion that Brandi is nothing more than gossip fodder for an audience limited to participants in a couple of popular online poker forums. Based on wiki's own guidelines - small amount of coverage in Cardplayer, etc. - meh, it's REALLLLY borderline. Have any of the accusations that she made against various poker pros every been validated by sources other than poketfives, twoplustwo, or random poker blogs? If not, then I say nuke it. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• KEEP. It's information. There is no such thing as bad information, it's just some is better than others —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.154.42 (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

that's about the weakest argument possible. Wikipedia has notability guidelines specifically so that we can avoid becoming a collection of random fringe articles. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• delete. Notability 'within the poker community' is quite irrelevant as is mostly not WP:RS and/or not mainstream publications. I thought she might pass per google news hits which are reliable, such as the Guardian, but that only has 2 sentences about her, and the rest of the 9 articles about her are passing mentions. Having said that, if this article survives, we owe it to her memory and family for the article to mention more about whatever accomplishments she had, and not only her health problems and death as at present. Merkin's mum 16:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per WP:N as 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.' Weak because her notability comes from the controversy she caused in the poker world, and from the unfortunate manner of her death; she was not a professional poker player. A Sheep (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Bbut the article as I read it earlier this afternoon didn't mention any of the controversy, as I recall. If we don't include it, it's pretty unencyclopedic/uninformative. I still wouldn't know what it was, apart from what's mentioned in the nomination at the top of this page. The article just said she was ill and killed herself...oh and she used to go on some internet forums:) Merkin's mum 19:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment that is because most of the controversy surrounding her "eccentric behavior" stems from postings on poker forums twoplustwo.com and pocketfives.com. Some of the gossipy issues were confirmed or substantiated by others involved, other issues were not. Examples that I remember:

• she accused Tom Franklin of stealing her money, touching her innapropriately, cheating on his wife, expecting sex in exchange for poker coaching/mentoring, etc.
• she accused other well-known poker players of cheating her/stealing/all manner of other stuff
• one pro accused her of emptying out his PokerStars account of some $30k
• some other guy accused her of moving in with him and then trashing his place/stealing all of his valuables/etc
• and so on and so on

of course, to my knowledge, none of this was ever reported outside of twoplustwo, pocketfives, or Internet blogs, which are dubious sources of information at best. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I think the way Wikipedia asks for notability in regards to Poker players is skewed heavily towards people who play in tournaments, mainly the large EPT/WPT/WSOP "festivals." No one gets a Wikipedia article for winning one of the minor tournaments that occur during these festivals (unless its for a substantive amount). So why should someone whose best cash was for $20,000 and highest placement relative to the field was 55th out of 1500+ in a $2000 buyin event? We are attributing her relevance on Wikipedia to her being a poker player and her tournament results do not really qualify her as a notable poker player. Strongsauce (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on her poker stats alone this article would be grounds for speedy delete (CSD A7), But in fairness I don't think it was suggested by the people who wish to keep this article that she was ever a notable poker player, clearly she was not, but rather the her bio meets WP:N by way of being a minor celebrity, as it is now somewhat borderline Celeb/News figure at best, but not quite enough to keep.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 04:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I found the article interesting and informative. I think I would still find it so 20 years from now. So it's not just news, it has encyclopedic value. I think it ought to be expanded with more information, if more information is available. Jlawniczak (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:INTERESTING. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:VAGUEWAVE. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Touché - what I meant was just because it is interesting does not make it encyclopedic. The other part of the keep, the addition of new information, I have addressed above as the person involved is dead so there is pretty much nothing else to be gleamed on the person. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
        • That's quite a huge assumption, especially in an unnatural death. There is a very good chance more coverage will be forthcoming. And of course it is no argument for a deletion. 2005 (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
          • That is quite speculative, what evidence is there that more coverage is forthcoming? –– Lid^(Talk) 08:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
            • You are the one making an absolute statement based of course on no evidence at all. It's obvious there could be further coverage if somebody plays up the "gambling can be tragic" angle, or if criminal charges are filed around any of the various incidents, or if someone writes a "poker characters" article, or if there are details we have no idea about currently. So "pretty much nothing else to be gleamed on the person" is very bad thing to flatly state. 2005 (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
              • I am making the statement as the contrary argument is the same as someone saying a non-notable bands article on wikipedia should remain because "they may become more well known... later." It holds little to no water as it avoids the notability argument by stating that their current notability is to be ignored on the basis of hypothetical notability. If Brandi does become more notable through more sources, outside of forums and niche poker news, then it can be re-created then, but in the here and now these sources and coverage do not exist and can't/shouldn't be used as a rationale to keep. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
                • That's not what you said, and no one suggested anything about her possible future greater fame being reason to keep the article. You stated "there is no chance of notability increasing". That's plainly false, and certainly no argument for deletion. I assume you see that now so let's move on. 2005 (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • That's what I said in the original deletion reason, yes, but this discussion is derived from this comment and reply: "there is pretty much nothing else to be gleamed on the person" followed by "There is a very good chance more coverage will be forthcoming. And of course it is no argument for a deletion." That reply is quite contrary to "and no one suggested anything about her possible future greater fame being reason to keep the article." –– Lid^(Talk) 10:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • Please. I said nothing about that being a reason to keep the article. Clearly people can become more notable or famous after their death. That's no argument to keep an article. I only stated it because your "no chance of notability increasing" statement is obviously not true. 2005 (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree that "interesting" to the consumer shouldn't be considered at all. I'm new to Wikipedia and there are a lot of guidelines, that are often cited in the first instance as gospel to be followed religiously. But take a step back and consider the ultimate question. Here that question is whether this article belongs in this encyclopedia. The guidelines are there to help answer that question, but it can't hurt to focus on the ultimate question itself in the discussion. And whether the article in interesting to a reader of an encyclopedia is an importart fact in that discussion. And that's the context in which I meant my "interesting" observation. The example in the guideline is that whether I have pencils in my nose would be interesting but wouldn't make a good encyclopedia article. Of course not, but because is in not interesting to someone reading an encyclopedia. I don't go to an encyclopedia to find out whether you have pencils in your nose. An editor of a commercial venture better consider whether the product is interesting to someone who is considering buying (using) the product or the editor will be out of a job shortly. I would hope that we are doing the same at Wikipedia: considering the ultimate "customer." Jlawniczak (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not that interesting should not be considered, it's that interesting should not be used as an overriding reason to keep the article when it fails in other more important aspects (namely notability). Most articles on wikipedia are interesting in one way or another, but they have to fulfill other criteria to be articles, not just the topic being interesting. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:INTERESTING is not a valid "keep" argument. A one-time participant in the World Series of Poker falls short in the notability department. Her suicide or her boyfriend's description of her behavior and/or mental illness doesn't add to it. Apparently the article has been "sanitized" since the beginning of this discussion, thus eliminating some potential evidence for keeping (if it were indeed supported with reliable sources). B.Wind (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as non-notable neologism nancy ^(talk) 13:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flash dropping

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

No assertion of notability. I couldn't find any sources for this activity. nneonneo ^talk 08:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be patient. Citations will be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyallman (talk • contribs) 08:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete appears to be a neologism. --Oscarthecat (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, unless someone manages to find sources on this, fails WP:V. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO.--Berig (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO or WP:MADEUP. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep Proper procedure is not being followed here. Article was started by a newbie editor and four minutes later entered AfD. WP:PROD is the process for ensuring an article is improved or eliminated. Potatoswatter (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Articles are tagged for deletion minutes after they've been created all the time, frequently using speedy deletion tags which results in their removal hours or even minutes later. We do not have a policy which says that Proposed Deletion must be used before AfD. In fact, the primary purpose of proposed deletion was simply to lighten the load from the AfD system, not to give a better chance of articles being improved. Stopping an AfD process and replacing it with Prod, so that if the Prod tag is removed the article must be AfD'd again, would be ridiculous. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Speedy works for obvious violations, and prod works if the author doesn't care enough to remove the tag. If the author cares, then the article should be given a chance for a few days. It's rude and silly to randomly run authors through a bureaucratic wringer. If the author removes a prod tag, then presumably the article is being improved in the same timeframe as the AfD discussion would be taking place. Discussing in-progress articles is a major waste of time. Potatoswatter (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Providing more time for improvement or reference, i can't find anything personally but it should be given longer under WP:PROD --Tefalstar (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:PROD does not give an article more time than AfD. Both of them result in an article being deleted after about 5 days. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable neologism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Article was AfDed when it was less than five minutes old. It's less than a day old now. The creator has asked for time to work on it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - There are still 4 1/2 days left to improve the article (provided this nomination doesn't snowball). I tagged this article for AfD because I didn't feel it could ever assert notability, and a cursory Google search turned up nothing. If reliable sources are found to establish the notability of this activity, I will gladly withdraw the nomination. nneonneo ^talk 22:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • WP doesn't have a policy requiring articles to be perfect within five days of creation. I'm not in favor of waiting forever, but five days is a bit ridiculous. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
      • It doesn't have to be perfect at all. All it needs is a reliable source to prove this activity has some notability. If even a single reliable source comes up, then I will certainly reconsider the nomination. nneonneo ^talk 20:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: neologism with no evidence of notability. -- The Anome (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. As a technological neologism, one would expect there to be copious Internet sources available. However, a Google search for "flash dropping" yielded no relevant hits in the first few pages besides this article, suggesting that either the name is incorrect or this fad hasn't caught on quite yet. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)