Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< April 28 April 30 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TCExam

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

Spammily written article on a software product, Google news hits are mostly for Testicular Cancer Exam and a couple of PRwires Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. Neutral - It can be improved...right now it sounds like an advertisement. Whaatt (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertisement. Nakon 00:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

-Nakon: This can be improved..for example, I just removed advertisement sounding sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whaatt (talk • contribs) 00:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

    • I didn't nominate it for deletion just because it was spammy, but because it has unclear notability. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • delete as it stands. Article doesn't speak to notability and still seems very much like an advert (even though the "product" is free). Perhaps the relevant contents could be

merged into the Computer-based training article? Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep I'm the author of the software, so my opinion is not neutral. I respect your opinions but some comments above sounds like written by someone that has personal interest on concurrent commercial software (vendors socket-puppets) or someone that do not understand what a popular or notable software is. I understand that writing an article about my own software is not a good practice but some of the above affirmations are clearly false:
    • > Spammily written article on a software product
      • False, TCExam is not a product but a Free Libre Open Source Software originally designed to help schools and universities in developing countries. The original page only report facts, a simple description of what TCExam is and a list of feature. No advertising or spammy language was used.
    • > Google news hits are mostly for Testicular Cancer Exam and a couple of PRwires
      • False, a Google search for the term TCExam returns about 101,000 pertinent results. Also, some results refers to studies and research activities where TCExam was used.
    • > Advertisement
      • False (at least in commercial sense), TCexam is free and is covered by GNU-GLPv3 license.
    • > it has unclear notability
      • False, Sourceforge.net ranking statistics clearly shows that TCExam is one of the first 300 (sometimes under 200) over near 178,000 open source projects. Isn't that a clear measure of notability? This rank means also that TCexam is currently the first free and open-source Computer-Based Assessment Software of the world. Another notability fact is that this project has been translated by users in 13 languages, includic LTR Arabic language. As you can see on TCExam forums or searching with Google, several important Universities and institutions are using TCExam (for free, without pay a cent). Another important fact is the interest raised by the Joint Research Commission - European Community for this software.
    • I think that TCExam is every day increasing in popularity and this probably makes commercial software vendors more nervous... Nicolaasuni (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


  • Read my inline comments to the comments of Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC):
>Firstly this isn't a vote.
Yes I know, I've read the wikipedia guidelines. I've changed "vote" in "opinion" Nicolaasuni (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
>Now to your other points. TCExam is a software product. It doesn't matter if it is free or £1000.00 per user.
In business, a product is a good or service which can be bought and sold. Following this definition, TCexam is NOT a product because it can't be bought or sold. Anyway, if TCExam is a software product, any software is a product, so what is the point? Nicolaasuni (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
>Next, Google is not the same as Google News and the statement about Google News is correct (as is yours about Google although some of those 101,000 hits are about Testicular Cancer).
This is clearly false. 101,000 Google results are just all about TCExam software (probably 2 or 3 about Testicular Cancer, and just because the page name). Google news is NOT a valid tool to measure a software popularity and notability. In fact, very popular software installed million times are never cited on Google News! For example the software "Ares galaxy" is download more than 150,000 times a day (more than 152,138,172 in total) and is never cited on Google news. Nicolaasuni (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
>Thirdly, the article looked like an advertisement and some users are trying to help it not look that way in order to improve the article. Again whether or not TCExam is free does not change the way the article is written.
I think that someone has tried to mutilate the article. I've read another time the article and it only report FACTS in neutral point of view, so, could you please point me on the sentences that sounds like advertisement? Nicolaasuni (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
>Everyday increasing in popularity and being available in a number of places does not automatically make the software notable.
I agree, but seems that this is disturbing some companies that uses people that act like you to denigrate the free open source alternatives. Nicolaasuni (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
>Neither does the Sourceforge.net automatically make it notable.
Probably is not automatic but scoring 191 over 175,969 projects 25 Apr 2008 statistics on the first and most important open source repository of the world is not an easy task and for sure an important clue of notability. Nicolaasuni (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
>I'm pretty sure there is notability criteria for software and/or computer products on wiki and would suggest having a look.
TCExam is going to be intergated as debian package and other distributions. The sourceforge.net statistics clearly shows that TCExam is currently the first (and most used) open-source Computer-Based Assessment Software of the world. Are not these notable things?
>You need to provide reliable 3rd party sources for the notability portion of this debate and present TCExam from a neutral point of view in the article. Perhaps you could create a simply pros/con table siting reliable 3rd party sources for each.
Here are some independent third-party TCExam articles/sources: Nicolaasuni (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, several forum comments, articles and blog entries are available in several languages (i.e.: Ujian Online dengan TCExam) - a deep Google search is required.
>Lastly, please read some of the policies around here particularly those about Good Faith and Civility. Coming on here and claiming that people are "vendors socket-puppets" is probably not the best way to approach the subject of the articles merits. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Please read better, I've never accused anyone to be a "vendor socket-puppet", I've just write "sounds like". As you probably know, there are a lot of people acting for commercial companies whose goal is to discredit competitors. Are you one of those? Nicolaasuni (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


  • Delete without predjudice I can't find any third party reviews or other secondary sources to establish notability. I don't think a source forge ranking alone would count. If reviews appear, we can rebuild the article. spryde | talk 13:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • For third party reviews and sourceforge comment please read my answer above. Nicolaasuni (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


  • Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I've written a list of third party reviews above. These are the ones that could be easily find using Google. Other works are available but hard-to-find using google. Nicolaasuni (talk) 10:11, 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. Tiptoety talk 04:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Datawasp

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

Software was released just a week ago. I think it's not notable, but I'm listing it here because I'm unsure (WP:SOFTWARE is no good). Article created by a SPA with a COI whose only other contributions are wikilinking to this article from other pages. Search on Google for '"datawasp "significant data systems"' returns few hits, most of them from download mirror sites. /Carson 23:47, 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 keep per WP:HEY. This article appears to have been improved to show notability with better sources. Bearian (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mas Amedda

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

No citations to reliable sources, no assertion of notability. --EEMIV (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable fictional character. Terraxos (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect if viable to the wookiepedia article otherwise delete Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Redirects to other wikis aren't possible. Stifle (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, already on Wookieepedia which is the only appropriate location for it. Stifle (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable fictional character covered in reliable sources with appearances in toys and published books. Just because Wookieepedia has an article does not mean we should not have one. Britannica has an article on Betsy Ross, but that doesn't mean we should not have an article on her, because the information can be found elsewhere. If we approached articles in such a fashion, we would have no need for any articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • You missed the key word in Stifle's delete rationale: "appropriate." Betsy Ross is an appropriate topic here because she was an actual person with real-world cultural influence and the topic of scholarly discussion. Mas Amedda is none of those; there are no reliable sources to provide an appropriate scholarly treatment of this character. --EEMIV (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Mas Amedda is also an appropriate topic here because he exists in toys, on films, etc. i.e. in real world media with interest to people in the real world and as part of the one of the most significant modern cultural influences. There are plenty of reliable sources for an article on a character such as this one on Wikipedia. Plus, notice how many sources the Betsy Ross article did NOT have prior to my efforts to add sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Something that simply "exists" is not sufficient grounds to create or retain an article. Where is the substantiation from third-party sources substantiating your claim that there is "interest to people in the real world"? Being part of Star Wars does not make the topic notable; notability is not inherited. Where are these "plenty of reliable sources" -- Google clearly hasn't been useful to you in finding any sort of real-world information on development, critical response, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Something that exists in one the most notable franchises in history is sufficient grounds to create or retain an article, especially when the character is not just in movies, but even has a toy. Unless if we have exhausted all toy magazines and all sci fi/Star Wars magazines, we cannot decree that sources absolutely do not exist. Notability is inherited, Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, and Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
            • I can provide links just as easily as you can -- how about Notability is NOT inherited? Your apparent zeal to keep every single bit that encroaches onto Wikipedia that *might* have a source needs to be tempered by, say, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Or how about actual policy calling for reliable sources? The notion that we should exhaust *every* avenue is itself exhausting -- if the sources aren't at hand and in the article, then the article should go. I guess we disagree on the potential for there being sources -- my familiarity with Star Wars and its press coverage suggests that there's nothing out there about this character. Ultimately, the burden of proof is on you and other keep-voters to find sources that establish this character's notability and that substantiate the various in- and out-of-universe claims -- so, find them. --EEMIV (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Oddly enough, the "inherited" shortcut cites "Delete UNESCO can not be notable because it's the UN which is notable, and notability is not inherited." as an example of an argument to avoid in deletion discussions and moreover notes "the notabilty guidelines, for books and music, do allow for inherited notability". There's nothing indiscriminate here either. Actual policy calls for reliable sources, which have been added. There's no reason for the article to go and my familiarity with Star Wars is that there is sufficient sources for an article on Wikipedia and there are within reason even more sources than those I found in a mere day of searching. AfD is not a vote. I argue to keep, not vote. The burden of proof is on all of us. Deletion policy actually encourages those nominating and agruing to delete to make a serious effort to find sources and improve the article as well, for deletion is generally a last resort. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no assertion of notability through reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic. Mere appearances in published media and having toys doesn't really mean anything when there's no critical reception or coverage of the topic. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The character gets sufficient hits that can be used to provide critical reception. I have already begun to improve the article from its nominated version versus its current version. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, not a single one of the top hits reflects critical reception. Wookieepedia, a MySpace page, discussion forums, fan sites -- most of those hits wouldn't even suffice as reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable minor character. No significant coverage of the character himself. Topic covered fully on other sites. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 20:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • As has been indicated, the character has been significantly covered in many media and if we used an argument that topics are sufficiently covered on other sites, we would have no articles at all as everything we cover is covered somewhere. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - if there is a toyline there will be independent commentary. The list of characters articles is too long for a merge, and I am sure there have been independent books covering the subject in sufficient detail to cover this character, as this is Star Wars...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable character from major franchise, article has proper sources for verification. GlassCobra 03:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, no real-world significance, and Wikipedia is not a fansite. Eusebeus (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep First of all, a major character in a major fiction. Second, sufficient references to specific discussion. Third, not exclusively in-universe. DGG (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, enough sources on the character to have an article, it seems. Plus, the argument of it being covered elsewhere is invalid, if anything wouldn't something being covered somewhere show encyclopedic merit? Wizardman 14:55, 6 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 no consensus to delete. Please take any merge discussion to the appropriate talk pages. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rule of Two

Rule of Two (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Single cited source is to in-franchise, in-universe plot summary; no material present that offers a real-world treatment of the topic. --EEMIV (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - fails WP:FICT, no evidence of real-world notability. Terraxos (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Would there be any worth in a chainsaw merge and redirect to Sith? -- saberwyn 05:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not Wookieepedia. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable aspect of major franchise with importance to people in the real world. Consistent with First pillar, i.e. a specialized encyclopedia on Star Wars. And clear reader interest. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A simple deletion would be significantly less productive than a redirect to Star Wars: Darth Bane: Rule of Two. -LtNOWIS (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Absolutely non-notable outside of the fictional universe. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 20:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keepsies - agree needs some out-of-universe material to balance, but article quality is not a prerequisite for deletion. Has sources, hence notable Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Clear reader interest here, major aspect of an extremely notable franchise. GlassCobra 03:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Can you substantiate either of those claims? If so, please add citations to your reliable sources to the article. --EEMIV (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - NO assertion of notability means that none of the other criteria need to be brought up. If it has no notability, then no references, no expansion beyond OR or stub status is possible. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - No real-world notability. This stuff could be a section of Sith maybe indopug (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Star Wars: Darth Bane: Rule of Two as a reasonable search term (and because it preserves the history). Then Merge content to various articles as appropriate. Simply does not meet the minimum threshold of WP:FICT - no reliable sources to confirm real-world notability. Pastordavid (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • R2Delete2 Long ago, in a non-notable galaxy far, far away... Ecoleetage (talk) 02:35, 7 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. Wizardman 14:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shariff Ameeruddin Ishaqui

Shariff Ameeruddin Ishaqui (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod by an IP (probably the creator). Non-notable journalist, a Google search shows no results for this reporter other than on Wikipedia Cunard (talk) 22:56, 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. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hatzfeldt Syndrome

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

Suspected hoax. There are no PubMed results for "Hatzfeldt syndrome"; "Hatzfeld" only gets hits in author names, mostly in molecular biology papers. There are no PubMed results for "Systemic Neuro-Epiphysial Disorder", and there shouldn't be, because there are no anatomical structures to which the term "neuroepiphyseal" could apply; I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as a "neuroepiphysis", at least not in people. A Google search gets only two hits in seemingly reputable sites that are not Wikipedia mirrors: this and this. For a quite detailed critique by User:Fuzzform of why this article makes absolutely no sense scientifically, please see User_talk:Fvasconcellos#Re:_Hatzfeldt_Syndrome. By the way, I intend to notify WP:MED of this discussion. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed both the sites you mentioned, asking what their source was (?just WP itself, in which case shame on Oakland Institute). David Ruben Talk 00:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Good, I was sidetracked while trying to do the same. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Received nice email back from sleep.org thanking us for the "catch" and they have now removed the term from their dictionary :-) David Ruben Talk 19:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - seems fake, but even if some obscure paper does claim for the term, it is not an accepted term (zero PubMed hits and likewise not listed in WHO's ICD10), and fails meet criteria of notability (remember not everything that is true has to be included in wikipedia). I'll reconsider if either of above websites can point to a source, but WP:N would still seem unlikely to be met... David Ruben Talk 00:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD G1. No reason this has to languish as long as the Eiiris,_K._Kagami article has. Protonk (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Meh. Looks like CSD=/= hoaxes. Protonk (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ongoing WP:V problems. Even if the condition exists, it seems it is being promulgated non-scientifically and would not normally be considered even by sleep experts. In medicine, absence from PubMed is a guarantee to non-notability, even if the condition is recognised by some. JFW | T@lk 06:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Probable hoax. Stifle (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Stifle. Jakew (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as likely hoax. I tried Amazon.com, Academic Search Complete, and J-Stor and could not find any results. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:49, 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. Wizardman 14:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Titus James

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

Non-notable player - no evidence he has played in a fully professional league; article states he currently plays for SM Caen but he is not listed on their official site; limited Google hits GiantSnowman 22:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 22:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - doesn't appear notable enough at this time. It's possible the Malaysian-language sources (which I can't read) provide evidence of notability, but I doubt it. Terraxos (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The Caen thing is vandalism which I've reverted; the article states he plays for "Third Division club" Villenoy. He does exist, and probably does play for Villenoy, per English-language sources [1], [2], [3], but they appear to be a very minor club per French F.F. playing in the departmental Paris Ile-de-France league which is nowhere near the Third Division. As a footballer, he clearly isn't notable; as a Malaysian personality, perhaps he might be. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Reply I'm not doubting his existence, just his notability; if he is playing for Villenoy then he is still not notable. GiantSnowman 11:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, as a footballer he doesn't satisfy WP:ATHLETE. But nor did Sonny Pike. He was a young boy who was so good at football that he went off to a foreign country as a great prospect but never became a footballer; his notability presumably came under the WP:BIO#Basic criteria, being the subject of independent published sources. Titus James looks like a Malaysian equivalent. As the article stands, there aren't sufficient independent sources to assert notability, but that isn't to say they don't exist. All I'm saying is that there might be more to this particular case than just black-and-white football-notability considerations. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
If reliable, independent sources can be found to back up his notability on that front, then the article should remain. All I seem to be able to find are forums and James' personal blog. GiantSnowman 13:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
How? He fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a professional league, and WP:BIO as there are no independent, reliable sources which confirm his notability. GiantSnowman 17:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no assertion of notability, fails WP:ATHLETE and that's way enough to me. --Angelo (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as appears to fail WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, he is very famous in Malaysia as a prospect that never lived up to his potential. Most Malaysians remember him from his frequent 'keep uppy' sessions in malls etc. (Namzie11 (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC))
Any evidence that he is "very famous"? GiantSnowman 11:01, 6 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. chaser - t 18:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Paul Grove

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

Small part actor. Ghits yield very little in terms of biographical content, mainly filmography. Fails WP:N for me due to lack of real information about the person beyond filmography lists. treelo talk 22:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Article has been deleted twice prior to this nom, once through WP:PROD and again through WP:CSD#A7. Might be a stronger candidate for speedy deletion again through A7, content seems to be fairly inert and unlikely to be too controversial. --treelo talk 22:53, 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 keep. chaser - t 20:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leonard Horowitz

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Tagged for better refs since November 2007, but continues to lack any evidence of notability through independent, reliable secondary sources. Largely a resumé, and without good secondary sources we can't write an encyclopedic bio. MastCell Talk 22:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I just viewed Jeremiah Wright's reference to Horowitz's book as his (Wright's) justification for asserting the U.S. Government intentionally developed the AIDS virus to kill off people of color. People need to know the credentials of this author -- or lack thereof, given that his title of "Doctor" comes from a background in dentistry and behavioral sciences, not medicine or biology. It would be nice to see more info here about Horowitz, rather than see the page deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Convit (talk • contribs) 09:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think he's notable as an academic; a Google Scholar search for "LG Horowitz" gave no works with more than a handful of citations.[4] However, his book, Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola: Nature, Accident, or Intentional?, despite being published in 1996, has an Amazon.com ranking of 1,102 and is their top-seller in the field of AIDS and second in the fields of infectious disease & communicable disease.[5] He also has several other popsci books currently in print. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Good God, that's depressing. :) While Amazon rank of his book is somewhat relevant, a Google search on his name turned up nothing in terms of useable, reliable secondary sources - just a boatload of stuff from the alternative-medicine, conspiracist, and anti-vaccination blogospheres. Oh, and he was apparently warned by the FDA for marketing a homeopathic "cure" for SARS during the 2004 scare (in a nice touch, he marketed it by taking Carlo Urbani's name in vain). I'm probably a hardliner on WP:BIO and notability in general, but I don't see enough to write a decent article. MastCell Talk 16:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
      • As an ex-virologist, I find it extremely depressing, but I suspect it's worth having an article on the guy if only to make it clear he's a dentist, not a virologist, and so most of his books need to be taken with an appropriate pinch of salt. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Your right he clearly seems to be a nutjob but we still need to have notable nutjobs up and especialy after Jerimiah Wright refrenced him he seems to have a clear case of notabality.--St.daniel Talk 01:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. His name and book were very recently quoted by Reverend Jeremiah Wright regards his controversial views on HIV. To only now delete the article would be a rather blatant act of biased agenda and suppressing information. 88.212.144.188 (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: I was actually not aware of that connection, though I do make a concerted effort to ignore Wrightgate. Thanks for assuming the worst, though. MastCell Talk 18:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, can't see how he makes WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Unsure. He clearly fails WP:PROF. Apart from the GoogleScholar results cited by Espresso Addict, I did a Medline search for "Horowiz L G". Medline gives 21 articles by him, most with 0 citations, a few in the 1-4 citation range and the top citation hit of 6 for an article published in 1985. These are extremely low citation results for a medical researcher. I am not sure if he passes WP:BIO but, based on the discussion above, I am not yet convinced that he does. Nsk92 (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Jeremiah Wright just cited Horowitz's book in his justification of the claim that AIDS was a genocide against blacks. I think that gets him enough notoriety to justify his position here. WillMagic (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep notable pseudoscience. DGG (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources to be found via Google Books and Google News (archive). Having an article on the subject is in no way an endorsement of his views. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Nomination for deletion was based on notability, but notability is established through mentions in many published works, both print and electronic. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep If he's not notable, why is he being noted so much? I got here when I searched on Horowitz and "Emerging Viruses", while reading a transcript of Rev. Wright's recent remarks at the National Press Club. A Google News Archive search on keywords leading to mentions of conspiracy theories about AIDS as a germ-warfare concoction now aimed at African Americans confirms the currency of these ideas, which go back some years and apparently persist even now; if anything, Horowitz appears to be notably exploiting an already notable meme. Ironically, the hard part here will be the "Criticisms" section. It probably won't be easy to find authorities on the relevant subjects who would have stooped to comment directly on Horowitz; that leaves the task of citing reliable sources on the specific elements of Horowitz's brief. Not much more fun than unplugging a stopped-up toilet, but somebody's gotta do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakushima (talk • contribs) 06:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Move for deletion of most tags I've added a lot of material. NPOV isn't easy in cases like these, but luckily, his record speaks for itself pretty well. I think there's a rough consensus against deletion; I've expanded the article considerably; there are now quite a few references. If there's anything lacking, it's how to put him in context. Yakushima (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Move to delete AfD tagging - I've beefed up the article considerably. It's got better context now, and refers to his legit peer-reviewed publications. I think it could use a cleanup, still. Maybe there should be something about Horowitz's fight to keep his daughter from TB innoculation in Hawaii (some press attention to that). Maybe there should be cross-linking to related or identical conspiracy theory articles. But that's about it, and I'm tired of this now. Can somebody just substitute a cleanup tag? Yakushima (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This is the type of article to KEEP. It causes people to think and do further research, hallmarks of a free society. Controversial, perhaps, but what's wrong with that? There is, IMHO, everything right about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by contribs) 13:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per my above comment--St.daniel Talk 01:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge the material into relevant articles. The article is currently not a biography and there is inadequate info to write a biography. The article is all about controversies. Ewenss (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No, speaking as the guy who has probably put 20 hours into the article by now, you can see as well anyone, Ewenss, that the article cites his peer-reviewed publications, and mentions his credentials in more than one place. Is it "all about controversies"? It's not controversial whether the FDA and FTC sent Horowitz warning letters about his bogus SARS remedy. They did. Horowitz responded openly, publicly, by TRYING to make a controversy over it, by cocking a snoot at both agencies. ("No such thing as bad publicity", it seems.) It's not controversial that The Final Call cited his work about AIDS and Ebola, with conspiracy theories linking Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski into supposed programs of genocide against African Americans. The Final Call DID publish that. It's not controversial whether Rev. Jeramiah Wright cited Horowitz's Emerging Viruses in support of his contention that the U.S. government lied about having engineered HIV. He did. You can go watch that on video. I'm sure there are quite a few biographies on Wikipedia of people who have become notable chiefly because they sought controversy. (The list would probably include a healthy dollop of conspiracy theorists, and "conspiracy theorist" seems to be a label Horowitz would wear proudly, if anything.) YOU need to make the case that Horowitz is not notable. And you're somehow going to have to do that despite the fact he's been extensively noted, in one way or another. Horowitz gravitates toward controversy, is mainly noted for his statements and writing on certain controversial topics, so OF COURSE the article on him is going to bring up the controversies he's been involved with. How could it be any other way? Yakushima (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The material is about certain specific VIEWPOINTS. That is the basis for articles about viewpoints, NOT a biography. Clearly. Ewenss (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
(Just deleted a long and embarrassing rant of mine here. Trying again.) If somebody has become notable for his viewpoints -- and Horowitz is notable for more than that, though not much more -- he's still notable. If he doesn't have much non-conspiracy-theoretic, non-quackery information available about his life, it's because of what he's devoted his life to, isn't it? Given the nature of his work, how much can we believe anyway, to the extent that biographical information comes from him? I believe he has daughter, because she's mentioned in Hawaiian news as part of Horowitz's resistance to TB immunization of schoolchildren. I believe he has a wife -- she's quoted in press releases as defending him against against charges of being a public health menace because of his leadership role in opposing vaccination. Do I mention them without mentioning the Horowitz controversies they are tied up in? Do I just say he has a wife and a daughter? I don't believe these people are imaginary, but they do seem to live in their own heads, and their heads seemed to be stuffed up certain of their orifices. How do I treat the man and his life apart from his weird controversies? He himself makes that almost impossible. He's almost notable for that alone. ;-) Yakushima (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
"Long embarrassing rant" sums up the article nicely. Cryptographic hash (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Really? I'm trying to stay even-toned. Do you have any suggestions about how I might offer a bit more NPOV? Obviously I can't just delete the words of Horowitz, Rev. Wright or The Final Call wherever they seem to be ranting (it wouldn't leave much to quote from them), but exactly where do you think I'm ranting in article? Yakushima (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator: Having seen additional sources, of which I was not aware, come to light as a result of this process, I'm willing to withdraw my nomination. I think there's enough here to establish notability in light of the Rev. Wright thing. It didn't show up in my Google search, but I should probably have checked Google News (in my defense, I'm trying hard to ignore "Wrightgate"). Anyhow, I'm satisfied with the addition of more good sources that a reasonable article can be written here. MastCell Talk 18:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment from current principal (though not initial) author Does this close the discussion? I'm not versed in deletion protocols, so I don't know where we are in the process. As long as I'm here: I've gone from 110% KEEP (probably violating WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND here and there under the influence of my certainty) down to about 95% Keep -- or would that be Weak Keep?. This change is a side-effect of earning the dubious distinction of suddenly becoming Wikipedia's #1 expert (probably -- who else would admit it?) on Leonard G. Horowitz. On the whole I'd prefer the side-effects of binge drinking, if a bender could help me forget what I now know about the guy. (Unfortunately I've watched some of Horowitz's YouTube video footage, so he is now burned into my brain as indelibly as certain scenes from I Am Legend.) I'll soon post some discussion at the article's discussion page, about why I think some notability arguments made above (both mine and others) are a little weaker, and why some arguments for deletion perhaps a little stronger, than I originally thought. This experience has improved my understanding of notability and BLP issues; growing understanding of these issues is another contributing factor in my weakening Keep opinion. Yakushima (talk) 13:17, 6 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 failing WP:N (and various more specific branches of it). No prejudice against recreation should sufficient reliable sources be found which can verify notability. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Urs Lüthi

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

Apparently he wrote a well-regarded book about the Berne Trial, a notable event in the history of antisemitism. It's not quite clear from the article, though, whether this is enough to warrant an article per WP:PROF. His date of birth and death appear to be uncertain (indicating that his life hasn't been covered in any detail by anyone), and the assertion of him being a scholarly authority is not substantiated with an inline citation. The name is a common one in Switzerland, so Google yields many hits about unrelated persons. Sandstein (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. This and this suggests that he may be better known as a photographer or artist. --Eastmain (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That's probably another Urs Lüthi. As I said, both the first and the last name are rather common in Switzerland. Sandstein (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep of this {{stub}} which is {{underconstruction}} and no longer {{orphaned}}. The 1994 imprint by Urs Luthi is the standard work on the Berne Trial of 1934-5. And the latter is the most important source of facts regarding the most infamous anti-Semitic hoax known by its most popular name as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion: Lüthi, Urs (1992). Der Mythos von der Weltverschwörung : die Hetze der Schweizer Frontisten gegen Juden und Freimaurer, am Beispiel des Berner Prozesses um die "Protokolle der Weisen von Zion" (in German). Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn. ISBN 3719011976. OCLC 30002662. According, the Wikipedia:Notability test has been established. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
What is the evidence for Luthi' book being the standard work on the Berne Trial? Has he received a doctoral degree and if yes, when and where? Does he, or has he ever, held any academic positions? Has he written any other published scholarly works and if yes, which ones? Without answers to these basic questions one cannot seriously argue that he satisfies either WP:PROF, WP:BIO or WP:N. Even a convincing WP:N or WP:BK case for his book has not yet been made. I am certainly simpathetic to the goal of having more WP articles on notable topics and people related to the history of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (especially since far too many people still believe their authenticity), but it has to be done in acordance with WP policies and guidelines. Nsk92 (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. No. This isn't a vote, or a trial, but a discussion about the merits of keeping or deleting an article. All opinions are welcome. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • keep, possibly redirect if no other significant info found. `'Míkka>t 16:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep meets WP:Author, which is specific for authors. some more information and references would help, of course. DGG (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment, I can not find the guideline WP:AUTHOR, do you perhaps mean WP:PROF? Ashanda (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I am interested in the answer as well since there is no such thing as WP:AUTHOR. More likely that DGG meant WP:BK since he is a regular participant in AfDs regards academics and knows what WP:PROF is quite well. I am still fairly perplexed, though. I don't think one can argue that the subject satisfies WP:PROF. The book about the Berne trial may satisfy WP:BK but in that case one should create an article about the book, not about its author. Nsk92 (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this author had really produced the standard work on the subject I would expect to be able to find evidence from Google searches for '"Urs Lüthi" +zion', which should pick up any sources in German, English or most other languages written in the Latin alphabet. In fact a Google Books search gets 4 hits, the book itself and three others which seem to list it in their references; Google Scholar gets 2 hits, which are the same as two of the Google Books hits, but also including the statement "Cited by 2" for Lüthi's book; the Google News archive has absolutely nothing; and a web search gets 36 hits, some of which are not about this Urs Lüthi, and in the ones that are about him I can't see anything that gives the sort of coverage that would confer notability. I know Google isn't everything, but for someone who has supposedly been a leading authority in recent times on such a widely discussed topic I would expect to see a lot more than this. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Phil Bridger's comments. Apart from a few mentions of his book, there does not seem to be any references anywhere about this person. Certainly not enough to pass either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. At best, and with a pretty long stretch, this is a BLP1E case. If enough info about the notability of his book is found, then we should have an article about the book rather than the person. Nsk92 (talk) 00:45, 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. Lara❤Love 22:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sara Roy

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

This article, which was created and mostly edited by a now-blocked sockpuppet army, is a coatrack for uncited criticism. It has almost no biographical content. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I know who created it, but some of his work was good, and some of the people he wrote article on were notable--I dont want to judge by revenge, great though the temptation. She had a large number of publications, and I think enough comments on them for notability DGG (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Same reason above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The argument presented for deletion could just as easily be taken as a call to improve the article. News coverage on Roy's work is easily sufficient to establish notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Who created it and whether there was uncited criticism is irrelevant. Sara Roy is much too prominent and well known for Wikipedia to not have an article on her. There's a lot that's well-known that isn't in the article now, like both her parents being holocaust survivors[6], think she currently has some temporary appointment in England as the director of something or other. Web and recentist bias may be a factor. This is not a close call.John Z (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
In addition, take a look at this book at google[7] the essay I referred to above is reprinted in this collection of "Prophets Outcast" as far as I can tell, she would be the only contributor to not have an article on Wikipedia if this is deleted. Unfortunately the (probably brief) biographical information there, which could be good 3rd party source is on a restricted page. There is little question about her notability though; she's the world's leading authority on the economy of the Gaza Strip under Israel. Even this general guidebook to Israel sees fit to mention her authority in this field.[8]John Z (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that you're mistaken when you write "whether there was uncited criticism is irrelevant". Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, "Reasons for deletion include but are not limited to violation of copyright, content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not verifiable in a reliable source, and unreferenced negative content in biographies of living persons". (emphasis added) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I say Keep, because she doesn't seem to be completely non-notable, because she appears to have published her articles in respectable outlets. However the secondary third-party sources written about her, which are more important for establishing notability appear rather weak to me - hence weak keep. I understand what makes the nominator think that this is a coatracking article, but i don't think that is too severe in this case. Other opinions are welcome. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep article needs major improvement but, the subject seems notable enough. I think expanding the article and formatting it a little better may help. Question though, I think I've seen the article up for deletion before. I'm not sure how to check this though. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Clicking on "links" next to the article name, there doesn't appear to be any previous AfD that links to the article. Also, the article's Talk page doesn't mention any previous AfD. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jasynnash. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep If all the references are legit, it seems clear that she is notable. I'm not saying it is totally neutral or well constructed, but that seems irrelevant here. maxsch (talk) 23:40, 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 as meeting WP:MUSIC due to the second album being released. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naledge

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

Does not appear to be notable as per WP:MUSIC -- the only source is a blogspot link and a myspace page. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - no evidence of notability. Terraxos (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - I don't think this is article right now. However, if what the article says is true and there is a second album released, it will meet WP:MUSIC. Since Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball though, it's non-notable right now. Tnxman307 (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Did you read that article? It's all about Naledge and Kidz in the Hall (in case you didn't notice, Naledge is one of the two members of Kidz in the Hall), not just "mentioning" him "in passing".--Oakshade (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What biographical information about Naledge, the person (not the group "Kidz in the Hall") did you glean from the article? I'm quite curious. Yes, I read it. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per norm. If kept rename after the band's name. - Nabla (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Kidz in the Hall. Although there is currently no information presented in this article worth merging, it is a reasonable search term and thus might serve better as a redirect. --jonny-mt 05:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was speedy delete G10 --B (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Najib Afsar

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

One look at the article should be enough. 21655 憎 - ταλκ 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete this borders upon gibberish. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete but not as "gibberish" --- It has a lot of perfectly readable content, and that content clearly is intended as an attack page; none of these claims are cited to any reliable sources. cab (talk) 23:54, 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. Lara❤Love 22:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Lindblad

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

Most of the apparent references are copyvios, since they are clips from newspapers hosted on his own personal site, and are too small to be readable in any case. The Youtube segment copied from TVA Montreal just provides his own account of how he helped out in one case of a missing child. (Nothing is quoted from any of the official investigators to confirm his role in the case). The article needs much more serious references to confirm the claims made and to establish his notability. Article was created by User:Robert Lindblad who is presumably the subject, which raises questions under our WP:AUTO and WP:COI guidelines. WP:AUTO states that Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged.. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC) EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. It's clearly an autobiography, but there is some evidence of notability here - the French-language coverage is pretty trivial, but the TV interview and English-language sources are more significant. What inclines me towards 'delete' is that his notability, such as it is, seems to focus around one event - since the missing child incident, he's received very little coverage, and appears to have sunk back into obscurity. Terraxos (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Re EdJohnston & Terraxos

Their is one news article that may be considered too small to read however it can be blown up for a better view by the reader. The Youtube segment is not only Robert Lindblads' own account as it was verified and confirmed by the parents of the child, the investigative reporters of Le Journal de Montreal, and that of the investigative reporters of "J.E. en direct". The police never reveal sources as it is part of the job of an investigator not to reveal sources however the parents of the missing child do confirm Robert Lindblads' role in the investigation in the Le Journal de Montreal article of 31-5-98 as do the investigative reporters of J.E. en direct. More references, proving that Robert Lindblads' notability is not related to one single event, in which the cases were active at the time have been added. These articles being that of The Ottawa Sun (2006) and the S.O.S. (TV-Asahi, Japan 2005) documentary. A radio interview from 2007 has also been added. The French-language coverage is not trivial at all as it is the first proven event recorded in history relating to an active case of a missing child that was solved by a psychic within 2 minutes. The evidence is clear as in Le Journal de Montreal article of 31-5-98 it states that the parents mentioned they called Robert Lindblad and were shocked to hear him state that their child had accidently drowned including where his body would be found and the very next day the article of Le Journal de Montreal of 1-6-98 states that the childs' corpse was found floating in the body of water that Robert Lindblad indicated to the parents. Robert Lindblads' work has been and continues do be done on a daily basis, is highly confidential and sensitive. However a few of the "then active" cases have been discussed in the aforementioned articles and interviews. As an investigator the cases Robert Lindblad works on a daily basis are private and not related to the press. The Dreamtalk interview in August of 2007 and other relavent articles and interviews dimisses the claim of falling into obscurity even though obscurity is part of the realm of a private investigator.

Re Cyberghostface Concerning COI From where do you get promoting your own intetrest? This is in the interest of all Wikipedia readers and is not a self promotion as it relates to the subject of psychics which is and has been included in Wikipedia for many years already. Concerning WP This article is backed up by proven and verified facts from the news articles of Le Journal de Montreal, the J.E. investigative team, and the parents of the missing child to deny reports that follow each other certifiably dated in sequence is to err in judgement. You are in error concerning the WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Lindblad (talk • contribs) 21:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


  • Delete - It fails to meet any measure of notability - the sources are not reliable and can not be verified as they are copies on someone's web site. A person who lives in obscurity is, by definition, not notable. Sources must be from multiple higher-quality sources, and not just be from one case in the news. Autohagiographies are especially suspect, particularly when they were deleted in the past, as is in this case. I'm sure Mr. Lindblad is a nice guy and respected by the crime victim's families and the police, but that does not make him notable. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Bearian Concerning WP:N you are in error. As defined by Wikipedias' guidelines "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition" Their are 11 articles printed and broadcasts from Canada, the United States, England, and Japan concerning more than one case that specifically meet Wikipedias'guidelines and by the way these are high-quality and reliable sources which are verifiable. As for the page being previously deleted it should be ignored as the person in charge at that point did not bother to spend the time or effort to do the verifications and decided on a prejudicial whim to delete the page. I know this because the articles are verifiable. The 11 articles and interviews from England, Japan, Canada, and the United States dismisses your account of "A person who lives in obscurity is, by definition, not notable."

   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Lindblad (talk • contribs) 21:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


  • Delete. Verifiable but not notable. Stifle (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Stifle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Lindblad (talk • contribs) 21:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for verifying them however once again "notability" as defined by Wikipedias' own guidelines is "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition" Their are 11 articles printed and broadcast from Canada, the United States, England, and Japan concerning more than one case that specifically meet Wikipedias'guidelines including recognition of peers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Lindblad (talk • contribs) 21:36, 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. POV fork, again. So title was also protected. - Nabla (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ukrainian Revolution of 1918

Ukrainian Revolution of 1918 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

NPOV title: Ukrainian Revolution is applied to events in Ukraine relating to the October Revolution of 1917, but there was no "Revolution of 1918". Historians consider Nestor Makhno and the Ukrainian anarchists to be but one of many players in the Civil War.

This content fork of Makhnovism has been successfully proposed for deletion before, and I expect it to be deleted again without significant debate. But agreeing on a formal AfD now will allow subsequent reintroductions of this title to be speedy deleted.  —Michael Z. 2008-04-29 21:20 Z

Clarification: The content of the article is not in jeopardy, because it will remain in the article Makhnovism. (This copy of that article was created by a new editor in an attempt to rename that article against consensus.) —Michael Z. 2008-04-30 19:12 Z

  • Delete [requestor]. —Michael Z. 2008-04-29 21:33 Z
  • Delete It's a copy of Makhnovism filled with POV. --Udonknome (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Ukraine is not Russia. Ukraine had it's own situation going on. Though the article may need work, there is more than enough to explore in this topic. Vert et Noirtalk 23:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and Keep I disagree with the current title, however it is true that there is to little weight given to this event, Makhno had more popular support than all of the other Ukrainian governments put together. --Kuban Cossack 13:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - if it essentially duplicates the content then there is no point for the double.--Riurik(discuss) 17:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Makhnovism. POV forking is not an approved method of resolving content disputes. Stifle (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete content fork. Ostap 22:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. --Hillock65 (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • delete, nothing to merge. Do not redirect to makhnovism but to DAB and protect the redirect. Or delete the redirect and protect from recreation. Abused for too long. --Irpen 18:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, this article could be merged with Makhnovism. But AfD is not the way to discuss merging per WP rules. Let's mark both articles for merging and discuss.Biophys (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • What do you want to "merge"? The article is a copy/paste fork. --Irpen 02:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • No, this is not an exact copy. Please compare.Biophys (talk) 03:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
        • As I said, the only changes are injections of POV. Do you know me??...then SHUT UP!!! Sarcasm is beauty 06:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I would rather suggest to delete Makhnovism ("Makhnovism refers to various related political and economic theories" sounds ridiculous) but keep this article. But once again, AfD is not the way to discuss merging.Biophys (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Forking an article is not the way to rename it (unless you're a newb who wants to fight consensus). Please, merge whatever you like from this near-identical copy to the original article. And please propose a better name for that one. Or if you like, you can argue about it here and get nowhere. —Michael Z. 2008-05-05 23:52 z

[edit] Discussion

I'd like to emphasize that this is not a proposal to remove any encyclopedic material, only this duplicate of the article Makhnovism. A serious vote to keep should explain what text is expected to remain under this title. —Michael Z. 2008-04-30 14:43 Z

[edit] Merge the text, delete this title

It looks like there's some support for merging the this version into Makhnovism. Anyone is welcome to do so immediately, since that article is not under discussion here, and I'm sure your efforts will improve it.

Most of the "keep" votes seem to have no problem with deleting this title. So let's do that, because the title seems to be indefensible, lacking references from academic histories (as opposed to political works). —Michael Z. 2008-05-03 07:46 z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "What-is-Good-is-Beautiful" Stereotype

"What-is-Good-is-Beautiful" Stereotype (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod removed by editor after 5-day time without specifically addressing the prod concern. Article is not an encyclopedic article but rather an essay with original research/synthesis. Subject is not particularly notable or distinct and could be moved into Stereotype. Page is the original author's only edits and no pages link there. Reywas92Talk 21:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - methinks someone's uploaded their homework exercise - original research, essay. Camillus 21:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, essay. A subtopic of stereotype or beauty, perhaps. --Dhartung | Talk 22:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Udonknome (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete not an article. JuJube (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete reads like homework and/or copyvio from the hardcopy source material listed in references. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete an essay Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice against re-creation. The one positive that I can give about this specific article is that I do not think that it is copyvio. Or, more to the point, I would like to think that a textbook would have better coverage of the topic. For starters, the stereotype in question is “What Is Beautiful Is Good,” not “What Is Good Is Beautiful.” Furthermore the description is not very good. For example, research on the stereotype started with Dion, Berscheid, & Walster (1972), not with Snyder, although Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid (1977) is an important study in the area.
Despite the problems with the article, the stereotype is still very notable. The 1972 study has over 600 citations in Google Scholar[10], and the 1977 study has over 300[11].--FreeKresge (talk) 15:46, 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 Speedily deleted by Dlohcierekim . Unable to find anything via Google to suggest this is anything but nonsense. Dlohcierekim 21:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meegrob

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

Seems like a WP:HOAX possibly? Gary King (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy DeleteArticle is borderline nonsense, no context, unsourced, probable hoax, the list goes on and on. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: No references, unclear what the author is getting at. Dwilso 21:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • G1 Blatant nonsense. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:24, 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. Lara❤Love 22:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colonel Kill Motherfuckers

Colonel Kill Motherfuckers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film that has a distinct lack of multiple non-trivial sources. Reading through the google hits for an hour or so, I had a very difficult time finding any source on the movie that wasn't either a blog, you-tube, or self-promotional. Trusilver 20:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I also note that this article was given a prod tag ten days or so ago but it was removed by the article's author. Trusilver 20:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't get that either, I have sent a message to the editor asking for him to elaborate on his position. Trusilver 01:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, see the Myspace test. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm really frustrated by this and don't know how else to prove a film that should be fine by it's own merit and the information I have already supplied. Here are the only other things I can think of: 1) Hack Movies has been touted by celebrities including Lloyd Kaufman and Monique Dupree. 2) (I realize I'm being vain here but...) I have appeared in numerous films and have also worked in the casting department for films and television shows including The Real World. See my IMDB page for proof. I hope this helps. If not, I will try my best to come up with more. Erkman27 (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You don't need to "prove" that the film is notable, either it is or it isn't. I spent quite a while looking for something to pass WP:FILM and I was unable to locate anything. If you can find anything that qualifies the need for multiple non-trivial sources, then by all means produce them. I will happily withdrawal this AfD if I can see that this is notable. Trusilver 04:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I am having to "prove" the matter. I have to "prove" it to the people other than myself who have written on this talk page. If it wasn't a matter of "proving" it, there would be no need to have this talk page in the first place and there wouldn't be a problem. The fact is you haven't looked hard enough. This film and the other Hack films have been viewed by millions upon millions of people but it is not known because of the obvious distributor issue with some of the titles of the films themselves. Another thing you can do is cross-reference the interview sites with alexa.com There you will notice some of the sites have extremely high traffic.Erkman27 (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete — Definitely not notable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC))
  • Delete as non-notable. Having a website, MySpace, and Youtube account aren't enough to assert notability. Coverage by independent sources is not provided. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I realize this is a last-ditch effort but would matter that I have been cast in a supporting role in a film called "I-59 South" co-starring Olivia de Havilland and Luke Flynn? The film will be on IMDB soon. The only proof I currently have are emails.Erkman27 (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep and clean up. Blogs can be helpful, even though they are not reliable, to show it exists as a cult film. I won't close the debate, because I don't see a consensus yet. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails the notability requirement for films, unless you count Dread Central as a "nationally known critic". Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 19:21, 6 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. WP:BIO basic criteria reads If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. It does not appear that the reliability of The Hindu is in question. However, the coverage in this article is not significant. The subsequently added sources include only trivial coverage. Therefore, the article, in its current state, fails to meet the criteria of WP:BIO in regard to notability. Lara❤Love 22:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hema Sinha

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

Previous AfD closed as keep in February but notability was never established. Sole RS coverage mentioned her fashion taste, nothing to establish notability in her profession. She exists and does a job, no evidence she passes WP:BIO TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 23:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, does not appear to be particularly notable. Video jockeys - being one is apparently her best-known role - are a dime a dozen. Blair - Speak to me 00:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: the person isn't notable enough yet, but thanks for trying. Dwilso 03:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - The notability is judged by coverage in reliable sources. This HINDU ARTICLE is ok in this case as it can be considered as a most prominent independent reliable sources among Indian news papers. Therefore, a strong reason to keep it. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 07:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment, from WP:BIO "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." that's not in-depth coverage and there aren't multiple sources TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 15:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Some times it is impossible to provide multiple sources. Most of the sources are non-English and offline in which we have to depend on available sources. Don’t you think that The Hindu news paper is an independent reliable source? --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It is one source, but it doesn't establish notability. It talks about her fashion, not about why she's a notable VJ. I don't question that she exists or does her job, but that doesn't make her notable. Tamil results are extremely limited as well, I just don't think she's notable. We can't operate on something that may exist somewhere -- it needs to be shown to demonstrate notability TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 16:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not notable enough... yet. --vi5in[talk] 16:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:JNN, Possible bad faith comment by User:Vivin (NotableGuru per WP:JNN). He/she has a bad faith track of targetting my edit and falsely commenting. Check the contributions for more details. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment - See TRAVELLINGCARI's succinct extract from WP:BIO for the explanation of my vote. No in-depth coverage, and no multiple independent sources. --vi5in[talk] 16:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment sigh... whatever. If I was really targeting you, I'd probably be running around in all articles you have edited. You'll notice I've only worked on a couple. By all means, go through my contributions. --vi5in[talk] 05:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
TRAVELLINGCARI is the one who earlier also nominated it to AfD. Now he is nominating it to the second time. I don’t know why he is not accepting the previous closer of this AfD as Keep. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 10:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I adressed that in my nom, notability was not established in that discussion, nor has it been here. Further according to WP:BIO for entertainers, "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." None of which she has done. I re-nominated, which is perfectly allowed per WP:CCC. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep this article. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 15:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You had already argued with the same reason and subsequently replied in the first AfD and the result was Keep. You are still echoing your same rationale. Who talked about WP:ILIKEIT? I talked about WP:RS because the notability established by the Hindu news paper, India’s top news publishing company. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - There has been no significant updates since the last nomination, and all the arguments being used by TRAVELLINGCARI have already been exhausted in the last nomination's discussion. Lets wait sometime longer instead of just pushing for deletion immediately after the last result. What's being done here is like an appeal on the same grounds. It's irrelevant. --Flexijane (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I see this pretty much Flexijane's way. The single cite isn't much, but the source itself is solid. There's no BLP harm that I see, and the arguments against still are not convincing. It doesn't appear to be self-promotion or advertising. I'd like to see at least one more citation. Is this link to her show on SunTV useful? BusterD (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment exactly, there have been no significant updates because there's no evidence whatsoever that she's notable. Doing no harm and not being spam are not reasons to keep, not being notable is a good reason to delete. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 14:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Further, from WP:NOHARM, "As for articles about subjects that do not hold to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes - it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here." There have been no valid, policy reasons for keeping this article and no evidence she's notable TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That WP:NORHARM subclause is from the very unreliable essay (not even a guideline) WP:AADD, which not only contradicts actual policies and guidelines, but is self-contradictory in many places (it tries to rescue itself with the WP:ONLYESSAY subclause). While opinions expressed in it might be interesting to some users, it is in no manner policy. --Oakshade (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Besides being the primary subject of the extremely reliable The Hindu article (not just a "passing mention"), topic is anchor of her own TV show. And so far all of this comes from only English language sources. --Oakshade (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment one source, that talks about her fashion. Nothing about her notability in her role. She does a job, that does not establish notability TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The The Hindu article is about her and her fashion. Thank you. Being a janitor would warrant a "She does a job" argument. Hosting her own national Sun TV Network show does not. --Oakshade (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Considering the nom's last comments - "She does a job" apparently referring to the topic hosting her own TV show - and the renomination of this article less than three months after that last AfD (nominated by the same user) which was decided as KEEP is indicating this might be a WP:POINT nomination.--Oakshade (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment, good faith anyone? It was not a pointy nom but rather a re-nom after an AfD with low participation and no-notability established. Someone doing their job does not make them notable. Not all people in the media are notable, some have been kept, some deleted. It depends on the person. Show me where she meets WP:BIO, especially multiple independent sources, which have not been provided in either deletion discussion. This one is actually interesting and it has some participation, but notability has not yet been established clearly TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
How can you say that notability is not clearly established. The Hindu news is clearly shows the notability (Just read it in a couple of time). And how can you say that there is no other RS available? If Hindu has an article, I AGF, think that there must be local news articles about her which is impossible to find in net. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, public figure, notability established, including in vernacular press. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete -- more than a single source is necessary to establish notability per WP:BIO, especially when the coverage is shallow, as the single source here is. Jfire (talk) 06:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I’ve just added a sify news to the article about her identity (the article is not independent about her). There are many google hits (ignore about blogs & other) also showing the clear notability that she is prominent. I request you to take off some time & find more local references, if possible. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 07:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The sources added are a passing mention in an article on an unrelated topic and a source affiliated with the subject (the TV station where she is employed). These do not help to establish notability. There do not appear to be further reliable sources that cover the subject in depth; only a single source with shallow coverage, thus failing WP:BIO. Jfire (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Reliable sourcing provided (in english) to verify claim to notability. Undoubtedly, if these sources could be found in English, much more could be found in other languages. Pastordavid (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't disagree, but no Tamil sources appear to exist either. I can't imagine that a notable person involved in media lacks online sources in either language. That's my issue TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 15:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • First you say "I don't disagree" to Pastordavid's "Reliable sourcing provided (in english)" comment, then you completely contradict yourself by saying the false statement the person "lacks online sources in either language." It's getting impossible to argue with you as your statements are contradictory. --Oakshade (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Apologies if I wasn't clear, I meant yes there is a source in English. Keyword there, a source. One. Not enough to pass WP:BIO as I read it. And no, there are no apparently reliable Tamil sources. I don't operate on the idea that there could be some phantom information out there -- somewhere. I'm done here unless someone says something that hasn't been covered ad nauseam. I'm working on an article of someone who's actually notable, as in 200+ source notable, not borderline maybe somewhere someone cares notableTRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 16:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, although this is a re-nomination, the space of time between (2 months) is plenty of time, not a sign that this is a pointy nomination. Pastordavid (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep A borderline case, to be certain, but the argument for her notability is more than adequate. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This seems to be a controversial article WHEW! After looking through the last AFD and this AFD, it seems the main case is establishing notability, which in my opinion has been done. Currently on the article are three references or outside sources. The newspaper, SunTV network, and sify online. All of these are independent of each other and establish that Hema Sinha does exist. What else is asked out of WP:BIO? I believe Travellingcari says If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." In this case, it seems there is a primary independent source and two secondary sources. Dusticomplain/compliment 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Relisting note: This AfD was closed by two admins near-simultaneously in an edit conflict, with my closure finding a "keep" consensus and Lar's a "delete" consensus. We have agreed to undo both closures and relist the discussion so that clearer consensus can emerge. Sandstein (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • (and we ec again! :) )Note: This AfD was closed, more or less at the same time, as a keep, by Sandstein, and as a delete by myself. We've decided (see our respective talks) that the reasonable thing to do is relist it, seeking further input in a hope of getting clearer consensus. The history of the AfD just prior to this edit should show the edits. We've removed the closure and the closing statement I made. I'm undeleting the article itself for reference as well. (since I deleted it), unless S beats me to it :) ++Lar: t/c 20:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, you would think that a popular TV host would have lots of blog posts and suchnot, but she only has 152 by the English spelling of her name and 11 by the Tamil script. That is very few, considering that there are a billion people in India. I know we are not supposed to use Google hits, but in this case it should be taken into consideration. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This should be patently clear. The last two sources cited in the article mention the subject once, in connection to some other event. Literally one sentence is devoted to the subject. This isn't what was meant by the multiple sources standard. Protonk (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I take issue with your evaluation of sources. The second source contains (as you say) one sentence discussing her performance as the "anchor" (I'm guessing this should read hostess or mistress of ceremonies, but not merely a guest) at a promotional party for a Kollywood movie. The second source links the SunTV show of which she is hostess. Each of these sources shows she "has a job" in a high profile industry. We have loads of MTV VJ pages, and most people never heard of any of them either (which isn't my strongest argument, I'll concede, other crap certainly existing). I don't have any investment in this page, but all sources pass the test of independence and at least the first and last, pertinence, IMHO. Given at least two independent reliable sources (her corporate TV show site and The Hindu Online), it's hard to object to the third (discussing her resonance in Tamil entertainment). BusterD (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What's to take issue with? Both sources, insofar as they are independent from her work, have only a minimal amount of coverage. The purpose of the WP:N caveat for multiple sources is to allow smaller figures some leeway. People who don't have biographies about them or major work covering them can still be included if they are covered by multiple sources. In my opinion, this does not simply mean a bare mention. And for both of these sources that is what they are. Regardless of their independence (which I don't think is questioned), their depth of coverage is what is being questioned. If there were a hundred sources that mentioned her in passing then we could accept a sacrifice of breadth for depth. In this case you are asking us to forgo one significant source for 3 ephemeral sources. That doesn't cut it. Protonk (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • strong delete - one whole google news hit, with just a couple of paragraphs about her taste in clothes.[12] So no real WP:RS worth an article. Merkin's mum 00:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - lacks sufficient reliable sources to show notability. It's possible she is actually notable in India, but even if that's the case, there just isn't enough evidence of it to justify an article. Terraxos (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment-After re-listed, it is noted that those who are commenting ‘Delete’ are mainly focusing on lack of RS. Please note that The Hindu news paper No. 1 popular and its own weight in India. It is considered to be one of the matured papers in India. As I echoed earlier, the notability is clearly established by it. Therefore, it doesn’t fail WP:RS. We have a strong reason to keep. There must be local news also that is impossible to find online. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The source you mention covers her in vanishingly slight detail. It is literally three paragraphs describing her taste in clothing and jewelery. The other two sources mention her in one sentence each. That is all that is referenced in the article. Regardless of the independence and reliablity of these sources, their coverage of her is insufficient. And your claim that there must be local news is irrelevant. What there must be is unimportant. What is referenced in the article is important. Protonk (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry I can’t agree with you. Why did the source covers describing her taste in clothing and jewelery in India’s leading vernacular news paper? The answer is clear that she is notable. Additionally, Relata refero and Pastor David pointed out in Lar’s talk and San's talk page (a similar discussion on this Afd), a marginal BLPs are not a valid reason on commenting Deletion. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • They are certainly entitled to their opinion. The fact stands. 2 out of three sources barely cover the subject at all. The third covers the subject in a "Retail Plus" advertising section. I'm not a reader of the hindu times but I'll bet money that section doesn't fall under the same editorial control as the masthead. As a matter of fact, the section is listed under "advertisements" from the front page of the hindu. As far as their motivations go, that is ALSO irrelevant. I can just as easily speculate that the mention was at the behest of a paid publicist just as you can speculate that her mention was because the Hindu times feels that she is the most notable TV host in India. Neither of our speculations should determine what goes into wikipedia. And furthermore, if she is so notable, how come there are only three sources out there with her name on them? Protonk (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No, your argument is not at accurate. I will prove it (keeping in mind that I am a regular reader of Hindu). See my comments below:
1) Retail Plus" advertising section?... No way, see the copyright status in the page down. The email id given ---@hindu.com is the same id given in the contact page of the main hindu website. Anyone can comment on any articles published by Hindu along with this, means the the mastheads are same who prepares other main articles also.
2) advertisements, paid sources?... Where is the section listed under advertisements from the main page? I dint find it. Retail plus Chennai is not a paid advertisement section by Hindu. It is a supplement section exclusively designed for celebrities, magazines, books etc. Since Hindu has strong online archive collections, it is available.
3) three sources, no other sources?... How do you know that? Listen to Pastor David’s comment for Strongly Keeping the article in this case above (before re-listed it). --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 06:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • First, it IS an advertising section. Go to their main page. then tell me what the name of the section of links you click on in the sidebar is (look to the left sidebar, above the google search bar). Second, who owns it is totally immaterial. It is obvious that it is not the same kind of content as the rest of the website offers. Third, even if it WAS on the front page, the depth of coverage is practically non-existent. They mention her, her job, and then talk about her clothes. The other two sources offer practically nothing except a name, so it is THIS source that the article hinges upon. Are you prepared to tell me that an entry in an encyclopedia should be derive from that first source? From the comments about her interest in casual wear? Lastly, and it really is lastly, it doesn't MATTER how many other potential sources exist unless they either show up in the article or on this AfD. If you show me significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, then I'm fully prepared to reverse my vote. but as it stands it is irrelevant that you claim there are many other sources. If they exist, why aren't they referenced in the article? Protonk (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No, no, no I could not find it has been re-directed from Advertisement section. Your assumption is wrong. Check this (see the left bar, Metro plus comes under ‘Features’ section). It also shows that what is metro plus stands for. Moreover, it was a kind of interview & reported by CATHERINE JONA GILON - a reporter in The Hindu, if she is not notable, it would have been impossible. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 07:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok. Using that link, "retail plus" is under advt on the RIGHT sidebar. Same as it was under advt in the left sidebar in the original link. And unless you and I are reading the.....ahhh, heck, I'll just post it:
She’s got the sweetest voice in town; this young girl has made her mark on the small screen with her innate sense of humour, spontaneity and beguiling talk. Retail Plus says hello to vivacious Hema Sinha of Sun Music. “I am most comfortable in casual wear!” says Hema, “My wardrobe is filled with shirts, t-shirts and skirts.” When it comes to brands that make up her shopping list, Wrangler and Scullers are right there at the top. So, where does Hema head to when it’s time to refurbish her wardrobe? “I love to shop at Pantaloons and the Globus stores,” she reveals. And when it comes to makeup, “It’s MAC!” she adds without a second thought. Think Hema Sinha, you can’t help noticing the junk jewellery she sports. “Yes, am passionate about them,” she says, toying with the long chain on her neck. “And perfumes are my other obsession, of which Adidas Playboy and Hugo Boss are my hot favourites,” signs off this pretty VJ.
  • That's it. 10 sentences. 2 of which are not about her fashion choices. The subtitle for "retail plus" is "the unique shopping experience". This is a shopping magazine giving a fluff interview to a VJ. Nothing more. Your assertion that this interview would have been impossible if she were not notable enough for wikipedia doesn't hold water.

(OUTDENT) to review: there are 4 sentences in your sources supporting the notability of this person with regard to her inclusion in wikipedia:

  1. "She’s got the sweetest voice in town; this young girl has made her mark on the small screen with her innate sense of humour, spontaneity and beguiling talk."
  2. "Retail Plus says hello to vivacious Hema Sinha of Sun Music."
  3. "The only notable absentee was Namitha, the other heroine in the film who the anchor for the evening Hema Sinha (Sun Music) kept on saying was "caught in traffic and was on her way to the function"."
  4. "Anchor: Hema Sinha" (from a program directory on her employer's website)

How does this make her notable enough to merit an entry in an encyclopedia? these are direct quotes, by the way. Protonk (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply. This is the existing WP article: Hema Sinha (Tamil: ஹேமா சின்ஹா) is popular in the Sun Music TV channel of South India. [1] [2] She was previously working for Raj TV but shifted to Sun Music in 2004 (which was then called SCV). Hema has hosted a few shows within the Sun Music channel but is most well known for being a video jockey for the show 'Hello Hello' (everyday except Friday, 0030-0130 MST), which features call-in audience who requests their favourite Kollywood songs.

Hema has also modelled for a variety of commercials, predominantly on the Tamil media. Hema currently does "Sooper - Dooper" , a comedy show in Sun TV.

The above article doesn’t made in OR. The stub article was created (I am not the creator) by the help of Hindu news & other ghits sources. Additionally, when we speak about a VJ/anchor, costumes, fashions and dress code are the main discussed issues. Not any books she received or award bagged. That doesn’t come to the picture. What else you want to know to endorse her notability? --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 08:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Original research isn't the problem. the problem is notability. The 4 sentences that relate to her in the three sources quoted don't establish notability per wikipedia's guidelines. I'm not trying to attack you personally, or her, or the creator of that article. What I'm trying to do is get people to see reason. here is the WP:BIO threshold for entertainers:
  1. Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
  2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
That is what needs to be shown. Can you at least agree with me that the 4 sentences I quoted above DO NOT meed this standard? If you can't agree with me, please show me how those 4 sentences show that she meets this standard. And I don't want to hear that she has to be notable or else the hindu wouldn't have interviewed her. There is some traction there but really only if it was the hindu doing it, not retail plus. Protonk (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • By summarizing my points:
  • 1) She is notable because of The Hindu article published news about her.
  • 2) The Hindu article is not a paid article, its an independent news item per WP:RS which was interviewed her by Hindu's reporter.
  • 3) The Hindu article speaks about her fashion, dress and costumes etc (note that she is an anchor and it makes sense).
  • 4) As an Anchor/VJ, the independent coverage may not be as available as other notable persons rather incidents/show details may be found if depend google ghits.
  • 5) She is one of the prominent anchor in Sun TV network.
  • With all respect to above reasons, I recommend keeping this stub article and expand it further by the help of local references. Thanks. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 09:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You didn't answer my questions. You are also ignoring the fact that the retail source is probably not under the same editorial expectations as the hindu. You are further ignoring the fact that this (and previous) afd has shown there aren't any other sources forthcoming. You have also invented the statement that she is a prominent sun-tv network anchor. This prominence is not established by any quoted source from the article. I'm probably going to quit while I'm ahead here, I guess my only wonder was how this article survived this long. Protonk (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I have not ignored it. Because the fact is that the retail source is also definitely under the same editorial expectations as the Hindu. It is exclusively designed for celebrities, fashion & metro incidents. Since Hema Sinha is a notable VJ, the news has been covered by Hindu’s retail plus page instead of publishing in the front page of Hindu. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 09:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Protonk (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT & WP:RS. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 17:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, it isn't sufficient that the retail section of the hindu covers her. YOU say it is sufficient, but WP:N says that significant coverage of the subject is required. We can go back and forth all day about the reliability of retail plus, but in the end it is unimportant. As it stands, that retail plus article is the only source referenced that comes close to significant coverage, if only because Ms. Sinha is mentioned in more than one sentence. The reason Is ay you are refusing to get the point is because you have been shown that coverage isn't significant. you have been shown that there aren't other sources (in english or tamil) that can expland the article. You have been shown that WP:N has not been met but you dodge the issue each time. The first time I made clear that WP:N and WP:BIO were not met, you simply assumed I was arguing that the article be removed because of WP:OR. Then, when I reiterated by claims, you presumed it was an assault on the article because of WP:RS. Neither is true. I have problems with retail plus, the sun tv network guidebook and sify online as reliable sources, but I don't even need to go that far to meet the threshold for deletion. Even if all three sources are as reliable as can be, she still doesn't meet the notablity threshold. Let me say this again, so I can be perfectly clear: Before we can presume the subject to be notable, she must be the subject of significant (that means non-trivial) coverage from reliable sources, preferably multiple sources. Nowhere in my interpretations of wikipedia's guidelines on trivial mentions for people do I see a suggestion that a 10 line comment is sufficient to base an entire biographical article upon. No do I, in the article, see an assertion of the entertainers notability threshold by any reliable source. This AfD is not, and should not be a referendum on the reliability and impact of the hindu. Whether or not that paper is significant and important is unrelated to the discussion at hand. What IS important is whether or not this woman has recieved non-trivial coverage from multiple, independent sources and whether or not that coverage has imputed sufficent notability for her to be included in wikipedia. THAT is what I was trying to say when I pointed out that literally only 4 sentences existed in the sources that were relevant to the article. Even if you include her interest in wrangler jeans and jewelery that is about 8 sentences total that ALL of your sourcing material mentions here. NONE of those 8 sentences assert notability in any form. 1 of those 8 sentences comes from the TV guide for the Sun TV network. 1 of those sentences comes from a film website where Ms. Sinha is mentioned only because she is apologizing for the lateness of some other, more famous figure. The remaining six come from a magazine entitled "Retail Plus:The unique chennai shopping experience". So if you can somehow show me that this is singificant, non-trivial coverage of the subject from reliable sources, please do so. I'll revert my vote and strike out my text. If all you are going to tell me is a variation on your past comments, then I'm not going to change my mind. Protonk (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Article needs major improvement for inclusion. Barely notable on "english" google searches but, AGF she is probably covered better in other languages. Better sources should be found and notability should be established better within the text of the article and not just by relying on thre reference links. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

comment one paper had 2 paragraphs or something of a puff piece about her looks, voice etc. That's hardly in depth coverage or even any breadth of coverage given there's only one article on her in WP:RS. Merkin's mum 10:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The countries one of the leading and reliable news papers (ie The Hindu) published two paragraphs itself speaks about notability. A marginal BLPs are not a valid reason on commenting Deletion. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 10:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails notability criteria. Neıl ☎ 13:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. She's mentioned once in a prominent source. People have looked for sources multiple times (since there have been multiple arguments about her notability), so the presumption that more sources are available becomes unlikely. There should be enough sources to create a complete article and only one good source after multiple attempts to find sources is just not enough to presume notability. Vassyana (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Seems barely notable. Stifle (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as this passed AFD with a keep decision only 2 months ago. It's too soon to renominate. 23skidoo (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not even sure if Hindu.com is a reliable source. The page doesn't look newspaper-like. In any case, the coverage isn't significant, which a prerequisite for WP:BIO notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The Hindu is probably India's most respected newspaper, and the major newspaper of the southern part of that country. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • What makes you think that The Hindu is any less of a reliable source that The New York Times or The Times? It's one of the two leading serious English language newspapers in India, and one of the highest circulation English language broadsheets in the world. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • without making any comment on the article, Hindu.com (and its parent newspaper} has always been considered a reliable source here.DGG (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm on terra incognita in regard to Hindu.com, it's just that the page the article links to doesn't look like the page of a respected newspaper. The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal wouldn't have ad links plastered all over their pages. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Who said it is ad-link, its a page (Supplement kind) designed for adding celebrities & film news. A kind of colourful news since she is a notable anchor it makes more sense adding news about her profession, dress, and fahion etc.--Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment More generally, since I've seen Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb make repeated comments to the effect that the reliability of The Hindu is the critical debate or that we should assume good faith that new sources will appear, I feel compelled to make a response (in case people, and I don't blame them, don't want to read through the bunch of nested comments above).
First: The tenet of Wikipedia to assume good faith refers to how we should conduct ourselves with regard to other editors. It does not refer to how we should conduct ourselves with regard to articles. AGF means that I don't assume Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb is arguing just to spite me (I don't). It does not mean that I assume that new or heretofore unpublished materials will appear to support the notability of the article in question. It is not an act of bad faith to ask that all relevant sourcing for the article be shown either in the reference section or on the talk page.
Second: This debate is NOT a referendum on the reliable nature of the hindu. If a subject was covered in the exact same detail in the new york times and such coverage was the only source available to assert notability, then I would "vote" to delete such an article. If we concede that the hindu is the most reliable source in the world, that WP:RS should be re-written to include a picture of the masthead on the page, then it still does not make the subject of the article any more notable. Therefore, it is inappropriate to steer discussion of the subject to the unimportant fact of the hindu's notability.
Third (and last, I hope): Having accepted the notability of The Hindu and it's associated website, The hindu.com, it does not follow that editors are required to accept that ALL subsidiaries and daughter publications are equally notable. The New York Times is clearly notable, but it is probably fair to argue that "T" Magazine, the supplimental section on fashion and beauty, probably imputes less notability than the front page. The same argument can be made for the Retail Plus: The complete Chennai Shopping Experience. I'm not arguing that retail plus is totally divorced from The Hindu. I'm arguing that imputed notability has to at least be different. at the VERY least, it is disingenuous to link to and discuss the retail plus article as through it were from the front page of the paper. Just as I would not discuss the "T" Magazine as though it were the NYT front page, it is misleading and inappropriate to do the same for Retail Plus. Protonk (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment-I Tomb is not editing against AGF, rather I am pretty aware of it and our policies. I have already replied you that retail plus is not any paid version. It is a kind of supplement version prepared by same editorial group in order to be included celebrities, models news. Why are you again dragging discussed issues into this AfD. It is unconstructive and personal attacks. Lets focus on constructive discussions. One more thing, except you nobody else commented that retail plus is not from Hindu group. Therefore, please accept the general consensus. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you are totally acting in good faith and assuming good faith. I'm not making personal attacks, please don't accuse me of such. Again, I've NEVER said that retail plus is not from the hindu group. I'm sure they own it. It is clear. What I've said, and what others have said multiple times in this thread, is that retail plus does not appear to be the same as the front page with regard to imputed notability. I've also said that this isn't important. Even if the same article was on the front page of the washington post or the New York Times, it would still be trivial coverage. To me, the triviality of the coverage is more damning than the disposition of the one reliable, independent source. Protonk (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • keep She meets WP:BIO. Although her meeting it may just barely I've seen no reason why we shouldn't have an article on her (such as a request for deletion by the subject). Thus there's no good reason not to keep. 18:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)JoshuaZ (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lara❤Love 01:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Varfolomeyev

Daniel Varfolomeyev (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD) Delete. Non-notable musician. Article is also written by the subject, so it falls under WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Article isn't referenced. Although it has a quite a bit of external links, most of them just reference his name and not much else. CyberGhostface (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete Written by User:Varfolomeyev Reywas92Talk 21:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Qworty (talk) 01:07, 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 --JForget 00:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pass the Peso

Pass the Peso (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable contact sport. unverified and probably an WP:HOAX. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 19:47, 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 to delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors
Articles for deletion/List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors (2nd nomination)
Articles for deletion/List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents
List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This came up for deletion about two weeks ago by an editor who opposed it on moral grounds. I voted keep, but subsequently noticed that the increased scrutiny the article was under has resulted in it being a list unable to sustain a single sourced entry. I am renominating it on that grounds. Toptomcat (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

    • My original concerns have been addressed, but since I believe that there are still significant (though possibly fixable) issues with the list as raised by others, I am not withdrawing my nomination, but am changing my personal vote on the issue to a Weak Keep. -Toptomcat (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing contained in the list. Reywas92Talk 21:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete without prejudice to future recreation. This has been nominated for deletion before, and kept because it was believed that it could actually contain something; apparently that isn't the case. I think it has potential, but it shouldn't be sitting in the mainspace without containing anything. Celarnor Talk to me 21:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NOEFFORT. I have added a song with a couple of citations to show that it's easy if you just make an effort. There are lots more such songs in earlier versions of this article. They just need sources too. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as a sourcing nightmare. While it's theoretically possible that this could be an encyclopaedic list, it's far more likely to end up as a mess of original research and biased accusations. Since the subject doesn't seem particularly notable, we'd be better off just deleting it and avoiding the trouble. Terraxos (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per Terraxos and WP:IAR. This article will just be an OR cruftmagnet pov nightmare. No value to the encylopedia in relation to amount of energy/time/editors necessary to watch over it and clean it up.-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Terraxos and PetraSchelm. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per PetraSchelm. Also I have doubts that this sort of stuff is encyclopaedic. By it's nature it seems to be pushing a particular POV. X Marx The Spot (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete when the sufficient secondary sourcing comes along to back up anything like this, we'll know it. Until then, it doesn't really serve a purpose. Protonk (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sufficient subjects and citations have been added to make this into a good article. Celarnor Talk to me 07:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete short list, always will be a short list. I'm sure that the few cited examples can be discussed in the relevant article as prose. Guy (Help!) 15:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
That would be a Merge rather than deletion. And what is this other relevant article? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment The other relevant articles are the articles about the artists/albums/songs. The Joni Mitchell song you added, for example, is already mentioned in the article about that album. The Siouxsie and the Banshees song you added already has its own article as well. The Pat Benatar article already mentions her song Hell is for Children viz child abuse. Etc. -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You could say this about any list. The purpose of a list is navigation - linking such articles with a common theme together. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I was just explaining what I believe was meant by "prose in the relevant article," since you asked.-PetraSchelm (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:LC points 2, 4 and 8. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It is an essay, is not a policy or even a guideline. Mathmo Talk 08:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      And? Stifle (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, I strongly oppose deletion purely on the basis of it being a list. So the other important question to be resolved is if it can be sourced? Apparently so according to another editor. Mathmo Talk 08:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, per nom's new position. --Ubardak (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, referencing now added. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as now improved DGG (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep now improved by nomWENCESLAV (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment WENCESLAV registered his account the day he voted, made seven edits, and hasn't edited since.-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Change to weak Keep But, how can any self respecting list of songs about sexual abuse of children be complete without mentioning GWAR's contribution to the field? Protonk (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, has improved since nomination, although Terraxo's argument is somewhat compelling. Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 19:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Stifle. Specifically, point 8. Lara❤Love 01:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename to avoid POV and curious association between the two completely different things. Lambton T/C 01:41, 7 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 all. Although I will go ahead and delete the untagged articles to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, please make sure to tag all articles being considered for deletion when bundling nominations in the future. If anyone wants to try expanding the Yomi article, then feel free to drop a note on my talk page and I'll do what I can to help out. --jonny-mt 05:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ni~ya

Ni~ya (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page, along with other pages for members of Nightmare (band), have no significant, or valuable content. It consists of mostly trivia. --Jacob Talk 19:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep - I think these articles can be greatly improved and their notability can be expanded. By comparison, check X Japan and it's related band member articles. Sourcing and expanding should be very easy. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it okay to respond here? Sorry if it isn't. Anyway, I think the X Japan members are a incomparable, as they have been active in the music scene for more than two decades, rather than just since the turn of the century. The band has little international fame, limited nearly to having songs featured in some overseas anime. The members themselves do not have solo projects (unlike all members of X Japan) and the sources on the information on these musicians lives is limited to current interests and hobbies, blood type, etc., as they rarely divulge personal history. In any case, I will look into finding new sources. --Jacob Talk 20:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, your right. I've looked there is very little sourcing that can be done for the Ruka, Ni~ya. The Yomi (vocalist) article, could still have potential to be expanded, but I can't find any good English languages sources yet. Perhaps someone with a Japanese Fluency can do some google searches. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (all of them), as I'm not seeing enough relevant content to justify separate articles. Putting a lone magazine citation in a Reference section is no carte blanche to add just about any random bit of trivia, much of it not even remotely connected to the reason we mention these people on Wikipedia, their professional career as musicians. This goes double in the absence of inline-citations, since we have no way of knowing what information exactly was originally intended to be covered by said source. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is nothing here which warrants an article. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:10, 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. Lara❤Love 01:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aggie Replant

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

Unnotable local service project by university students. Fails WP:ORG, if it would even be considered an organization, as its more of an open event. Collectonian (talk) 19:26, 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 Keep. Lara❤Love 02:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rafael Medoff

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

Fails all 6 criteria for inclusion of WP:PROF, fails notability tests for non-academics as well. No significant 3rd party coverage by reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails WP:PROF, significantly edited by POV sockfarm at WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/Evidence-based. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fails WP:PROF. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep 5 significant academic books & another one in press are probably enough for significance, even though they are not by the really major academic publishers. And she's not "a director" at the Wyman Institute [13] she's The director. a major administrator position and a major research center in her field. There also seem to be sufficient publications about them. I would not like to think that the controversial nature of her views should affect this. I'm aware of who started the article, but some of his work was good. Many of the people he thought notable actually are.DGG (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Neverthless, in this case her body of work, if collectively notable, would be noted as such. Not only does she fail WP:PROF as written, but there don't appear to be any sources discussing her life and work, so she fails the very spirit of WP:N. More generally, we need such sources to write articles about people, because otherwise we'd be performing massive acts of interpretation of the primary sources of their work, which is not in keeping with WP:OR. That way lie coatracks, and terrible articles. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. How on earth can anyone say that there is no notability here when are these 256 Google News archive hits, including reviews of the subject's books in major publications [14] [15] [16] [17] that show obvious notability for the subject as an author? Why do we have to waste our time fending off AfD nominations when the nominator could have found notability in less time than it takes to create an AfD discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • You are, presumably, joking. Is it standard interpretation for a book reviewed by the likes of the Middle East Quarterly to be considered "the subject of multiple independent works" because of those reviews? If so, I will withdraw my delete vote and go and canvass WT:PROF for that wording to be tightened. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, disparaging comments on how I should spend my time aside, one cannot find notability where it does not exist. What you cited there does not satisfy the requirements in the slightest. The infamous "Google test" is never a reliable substitute for notability, but even a good chunk of those hits point back to one source, highbeam, which also accounts for 3 of the subsequent links you list, with the 4th being a subscription-only library review. Many of the other google hits are in articles written by others on various subjects (not on Medoff herself) that only quotes here as a source. So please, keep your comments focused on the subject matter, and not me. Thanks. Tarc (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually it is standard practice for books reviewed by such sources as the Jerusalem Post and the Middle East Quarterly to be considered notable. What better ways for establishing notability could you suggest for books and their authors? And Highbeam is simply an archive host - it isn't the original publisher of these articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • For academic books? Academic reviews, at the very least. Further, as written, WP:PROF does not support the view that any person who writes a book that is reviewed somewhere meets it. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That's academic elitism; books meet notability requirements by having reviews, whether or not they're in academic journals. In fact, outside academic journals is more notable, since that's rarer and for a larger audience.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Not if we're looking for notability as an academic. If so, its academic views that count. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Who's looking for notability as an academic? The subject is notable as an author and the director of a political think tank. He and his books get plenty of coverage from mainstream media sources in these capacities. He's not a professor, and nothing in the article claims that he is, so why does everyone keep going on about WP:PROF? WP:BIO is the standard here. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Er, he is in fact an academic. If he's not, then as a general interest author he definitely doesn't make the criterion - he hasn't been reviewed by any high-circulation publications, after all. If he's an activist, there should be sources about him - which is our standard WP:BIO route, right? Two independent sources talking about his life and career? I don't see those either. Any way you slice it, you have to find a criterion he meets; and having a book reviewed by the MEQ doesn't make it in my opinion. We've written WP:PROF so it excludes academics who've written books unless those books can be demonstrated, or cited, as notable advancements or contributions to their field. Relata refero (disp.) 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The Jerusalem Post is a high-circulation publication. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -meets WP:PROF, and WP:BIO, in general, as a frequently quoted expert and contributor to mainstream media. See [18] [19][20][21][22][23][, as just a few of resources available on-line. Editing by sockpuppets is not a reason to delete an article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Barring something egregious or a question posed directly to me, this should be the last response as I really don't want to be one of those people that ticky-tacks everything in their of AfD nomination :); I've had my say and will let others weigh in. But I had to respond once more to this, to point out that my rationale above is purely on notability, and not on suspected socks. As for the "sources" you give, penning a few columns or being mentioned tangentially by another columnist writing on a topic does not meet either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. I surmise that you are trying to go by "An academic repeatedly quoted, as an academic expert, in newspapers or newsmagazines may be considered to meet criterion 1", where criterion 1 is "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources". Medoff is quoted in places, yes, but I do not see that it rises to the thresholds of "repeatedly quoted" or "significant expert". Tarc (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Medoff is quite well known. Right now there is a significant academic/real world (much in the Jewish press) controversy between what's been called the "conventional" or older, traditional account of the attitude and actions of the US, UK etc toward WWII refugee issues and the Holocaust, and the "revisionist" account (which has ties to Revisionist Zionism), whose position is basically The Abandonment Of The Jews; see also e.g. Auschwitz bombing debate). Partly because of relative youth and energy, I think, Medoff is in some ways now the leader of the revisionists - David Wyman is more respected by both sides, but he's pretty old, and as far as I can tell, Medoff's been made sort of the legitimate heir. Medoff is quite active in putting forward his (not her, btw) theses in the press and to other institutions like museums, etc.. Until very recently I think it is fair to say that the revisionist account was clearly winning and replacing the older US, FDR etc were good guys account. A recent example is the controversy over Robert Rosen's Saving the Jews': Franklin Roosevelt and the Holocaust, foreword by Gerhard Weinberg, afterword by Alan Dershowitz; as you can see at the Wyman Institute and some cites in the Jewish press, Medoff organized a bunch of 50 or so scholars to sign a critique of this vigorously pro-"conventional" book, which had been supported by two very notable people. So I think this, among others is enough to show that he is a significant person in this significant battle of the books, and his article should be kept. IMHO, he satisfies most of the criteria in WP:PROF My apologies for going on at such length. I think these controversies are underreported at Wikipedia & have done a little work to remedy this, and felt I had to explain the context. John Z (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete- Fails WP:PROF criteria. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

*KeepI don't know why Relato Refero is arguing so strongly against reality, but, since Relato Refero asserted that theses books are not received by scholars, I punched Medoff into JSTOR. Results: His books gets reviewed: Review: Medoff's "The Deafening Silence, " Yehuda Bauer ,The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 80, No. 3/4 (Jan. - Apr., 1990), pp. 371-375 , Review: Pragmatic Idealists: Zionism in AmericaReview: Pragmatic Idealists: Zionism in America, Stuart Knee ,Reviewed work(s): Zionism and the Arabs: An American Jewish Dilemma, 1898-1948 by Rafael Medoff, The Emergence of American Zionism by Mark A. Raider , AJS Review, Vol. 24, No. 2 (1999), pp. 337-341. Moreover: His books are discussed in the periodic review articles commissioned by the journal "Modern Judaism," in fact, earlier this week, I inculded Deborah Lipstadt's discussion of Medoff's work in her 1990 review essay of recent work on the Holocaust in "Modern Judaism." More significantly, in 1995 "Modern Judaism" commissioned Medoff to write the review article. Recent Trends in the Historiography of Zionism: A Review Essay, by Rafael Medoff, Modern Judaism, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Feb., 1995), pp. 95-101. Plus: To add to my puzzlement over Relato Refero's motivations, after I saw that he had suggested this article for deletion and spent some time adding material to the article, he put up this on my account page: An editor has expressed a concern that this user may be a sock puppet of Evidence-based. Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks. In sum: Relato Refero's postign of this notice did have the effect of adding a new term to my vocabulary. But I hardly think flinging such accusations is an appropriate response to my objections to his attempt to remove this article. In fact, though adding information to Wikipedia pages when I am excited about an institution, a book, a play, or a beautiful building is fun, I don't particularly care for the argumentative, aggressive tone of some editors at Wikipedia. I suspect, moreover, that it drives people from continuing to contribute.13:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Fan613

Um. On this, see User talk:Thatcher#Request for a checkuser confirmation of my suspicion. See the checkuser case I linked earlier to why this is a pattern of behavior. Relata refero (disp.) 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
in spite of the behavior of the above user, the subjects books do get reviewed in academic publications, thus showing notability as a writer. DGG (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, unclear how he meets WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't know about WP:BIO but he clearly satisfies WP:PROF. Being the director of a significant academic institute would probably be enough already. GoogleBooks returns 148 hits[24] which is also substantial. As noted above, GoogleNews gives 256 hits.[25] More than enough to satisfy criterion 1 of WP:PROF, see example 2 in WP:PROF:"An academic repeatedly quoted, as an academic expert, in newspapers or newsmagazines may be considered to meet criterion 1." Nsk92 (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems quite notable based on sources avaliable. Yahel Guhan 22:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Yahel Guhan 22:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -- high number of reviews shows notability. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Sheesh! A half-dozen published books, a major role for two decades in an important debate (American responsibility for the Holocaust). If he was a science fiction writer, would we be having this question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yudel (talk • contribs) 00:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Enough outside respected sources that he is notable--YY (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am puzzled what led to someone suggesting removing Dr. Rafael Medoff's Wikipedia page. Dr. Medoff's important collaborative book with Professor David Wyman and being director of the Wyman Institute are by themselves notable, as are his many other books, large number of articles in various papers in the USA and internationally, being historical consultant to the play "The Accomplices" shown last year in Manhattan, and high level conferences he organizes in the USA and internationally. Example of the latter is the 2007 Wyman Institute conference at the Fordham University Law School. Professor Elie Wiesel was keynote speaker and important talks were given also by Professor David Wyman, Professor Moshe Arens (was Israel's Minister of Defense and Minister of Foreign Affairs and its ambassador to the US), Dr. Rebecca Kook (Hillel Kook's daughter), ex-New York City mayor Ed Koch and many other noteworthy individuals. Dr. Medoff and Professor Wyman are the leading historians on the various important activities of Hillel Kook (Peter Bergson), especially his rescue committee which was one of the most important if not most important rescue activism during the Holocaust anywhere, and by far the most important in North America. As noted in earlier comments Dr. Medoff is not only the head of a noted research institute and a scholar with prolific publications in various media, but is also an activist and an effective popularizer of important issues. Some very basic litmus tests on Dr. Medoff's notability are the following row hit counts. Probably some links are out of context, however even the raw indicators are solid indications that Dr. Rafael Medoff, is indeed, making many notable contributions and that his Wikipedia page needs to be expanded.
    • Term "Dr. Rafael Medoff" on GOOGLE: 2,610 YAHOO: 15,700
    • Term "Rafael Medoff" on GOOGLE: 16,100 YAHOO: 82,500
    • Term "Wyman Institute" on GOOGLE: 8,570 YAHOO: 48,400 Emesz 1 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emesz (talk • contribs) 16:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per User:DGG above. IZAK (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per DGG, meets criteria for professors. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:10, 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 no consensus defaulting to keep. I'm sorry to bring such a long, thorough debate to such an anticlimactic end, but the discussion below presents a large number of competing, well-reasoned opinions without arriving at a definitive conclusion. --jonny-mt 05:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Augustus Hilton

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

Genealogy page for a completely non-notable Civil War soldier. The complete lack of notability makes for a very boring read, but by all means slog through it if you don't believe me. Qworty (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ordinary soldier who then led an ordinary life. Not notable. --Dhartung | Talk 20:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I reject the nominator's idea that it's a boring read: actually a bit interesting. However, definitely not notable. Nyttend (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Is having a village named after you a sign of notability? I think it's enough for this man to have his own article. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I also disagree that the article is a "boring read" -- and I also disagree that this man led an "ordinary" life. And the article's sources check out, too. While the notability is borderline, it is still adequate for inclusion here. I would recommend a rewrite, not a deletion. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment And his notability is ... what, exactly? He certainly does not achieve it through WP:MILMOS#NOTE. --Dhartung | Talk 02:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Response His notability comes through his work as a pastor and an educator, which I picked up in the article. He must have done something notable to have a town named after him (that's quite unusual). As I said, the article needs to be rewritten, not killed. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
He was non-notable as a soldier. He was non-notable as a pastor. He was non-notable as an educator. He was just a guy who was alive for a while. A town can decide to name itself after a blade of grass, but doing so does not make the blade of grass notable. Qworty (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, it would make the blade of grass notable. People don't rename incorporated towns after obscure individuals (let alone obscure blades of grass). Ecoleetage (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, this incorporated town--officially it's only a "village"--did indeed name itself after a highly obscure individual. This is hardly akin to New York City being named after the Duke of York. This is just a tiny village that named itself after a guy who was non-notable. They have a right to do it, but it doesn't make him notable by WP guidelines. Qworty (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, they do in fact name towns after obscure individuals -- people who would not pass WP:BIO. I don't think this minor honor makes them notable, any more than the (more significant) naming of ships after people, especially naval ships, fails to make them notable.--Dhartung | Talk 11:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, I don't know. I can’t see the connection between naming battleships after people and naming villages or towns after people. If anything, I would believe the naming of battleships (at least the U.S. variety, which I assume you are referring to) involves a great deal of lobbying and political pandering – something I see as less-than-savory. That didn't appear to be the case in Rev. Hilton's experience. From what I read online in Jeremiah Wadleigh Dearborn’s “A History of the First Century of the Town of Parsonsfield, Maine” (available here: [26]), Rev. Hilton overcame extraordinary odds to achieve prominence in his day. Dearborn praised Hilton in this manner: “Altogether, he ranks among the best men now in the Free Baptist pulpits.” It appears, too, that his prominence was fairly ethereal, hence this interesting discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
      • It is that (interesting). I may be more familiar with local history publications than you. ;-) Every county in the country probably had a biographical dictionary written in the 1860-1900 period, and every one of them -- while having value -- is full of similar puffery. A successful farmer, for instance, is a "noted agriculturalist". I'd be more impressed if it were, for example, a history of the Free Baptist church. This is a glowing profile of Dearborn himself -- which mentions almost in passing the only thing I think gives him notability, service in the Maine Senate. All the rest is basically personal opinion about how wonderful he is. Today such overt praise is shunned or pigeonholed as public relations spam, but it was just the standard way all these word portraits were composed. The books were considered an integral and necessary part of a town's boosterism. --Dhartung | Talk 21:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Response But that argument could be stretched to insist that all books that praise individuals are PR shams. For example, David McCullough's book on John Adams could be considered a revisionist view of one of the less popular presidents in US history. Besides, every county in the U.S. did not have a biographical dictionary written in the 1860-1890 period -- and please refrain from making negative comments on what you perceive as other editors' lack of knowledge. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Local notability isn't the same as the Wikipedia variety. Nothing in the article satisfies the latter. It is sufficient that he's mentioned in his namesake village's article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Upon reading the Wikipage on Hilton, New York, and finding that this village was renamed after a certain individual, would it not be beneficial for the reader to also have a biographical page on this person to view? Obviously, I thought it would. The27thmaine (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge I think the bio of the man could be shortened somewhat and simply included into the town page under a section heading of "Town Namesake" or something. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 15:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Tagged. No assertion of notability. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    So nice of you to make a unilateral decision while there was community discussion in progress. I disagree that there was no assertion of notability. I don't believe that a speedy deletion was appropriate. —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, I never noticed that you ORIGINALLY made the speedy deletion, and then restored the page. Orangemike made the more recent speedy deletion. —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Like others, I think he has a led a normal life. Nothing to indicate he is notable. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 16:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per the reference found by Ecoleetage that demonstrates he was a notable preacher in his day. As an aside, while having a town named after you may not demonstrate notability, it's a strong indicator of it; that combined with his accomplishments would, even without the reference, make him at least a weak keep for me. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge While the reverend was apparently considered notable by the villagers, I don't think he is Wikipedia notable. I agree with RebelAt-- I see no reason why Hilton,_New_York couldn't include a shortened version of this bio. Macduffman (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Both the references and the town being named after him establish notability for me. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. No credible assertion of notability. Possibly a mention at the hamlet's page. Eusebeus (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's not a "boring read" and even if it was, being a "boring read" is not criteria for deleting an article. Having a town named after him and the sources being reliable and independent of the subject, this topic warrants inclusion. --Oakshade (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm baffled. I'm constantly battling to save people like Marc Smith from deletion -- people who actually did something notable. Apparently this chap, who seems to be little more than well-liked, is able to be well-liked a century after his death. What did he do? --Dhartung | Talk 09:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Hilton, New York. Having a village or a school named for you is a rare honor, but that, by itself, isn't proof that you were notable except in your own community. For instance, it's surprising how many post offices were named for their first postmaster, and most postmasters would otherwise be non-notable. I agree that the maintainers of the article about the town can make their own judgment about how much to include about Mr. Hilton. Mandsford (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Indeed, my city was named after the first postmaster -- a tavern owner/ferry operator who used a cigar box for the mail -- because the post office declined his nominated name of Black Hawk (he actually camped here), as there was another town in Wisconsin Territory that already had the name (it's now in Iowa). The name was decreed by Amos Kendall, Postmaster-General, and as such was entirely arbitrary. --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Response The history of Janesville, Wisconsin, is not the subject of this debate, and the experience in naming that town is not revelant to this discussion. Please stick to the facts of Rev. Hilton's perceived notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Please present some demonstrated notability. --Dhartung | Talk 17:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep "Boring" is insufficient reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources that would establish the notability of the subject. Guest9999 (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Just curious as to whether you (or others arguing same) are basing your comment on the lack of Internet sources. Not everyone's going to have webpages on them. 23skidoo (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment I, for one, am basing my argument on the fact that he never did anything of significance. If he did, I invite you to show it to us. --Dhartung | Talk 17:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • My argument is based on the fact that I do not think that the required sourcing (web or otherwise) has been provided to establish the notability of the subject and I do not believe that such sources are likely to exist based on the limited sources which have been presented and the views of other editors above. If evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources does come to light during the course of the discussion I will strike my vote (although if my argument is disproved I doubt any closing admin would hold it in any regard anyway). Guest9999 (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Having a town named after you is significant, plus there are sources here. The problem (as I indicate in my comment above) is the fact there aren't a lot of web sources available. I say weak because it's possible the century old sources are bogus; if that can be proven, then I have no objection to the article being renominated at a later date. 23skidoo (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Why would the century old sources be bogus, particularly on someone who was non-controversial as Rev. Hilton?Ecoleetage (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I confess I find Wikipedia's culture of priveledging online sources over print sources a little odd. Even aside from that it biases the encyclopedia towards recentism, even among recent work, the internet has major holes in its scholarly coverage. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It isn't odd so much as one form of systemic bias. Similarly American topics and sources dominate Wikipedia, though this is changing as more non-American editors participate. In this case I don't consider anything dubious about the sources per se, it's what they (fail to) say. They're just no more indicative of notability than being written up in a local newspaper. --Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 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 transwiki and delete. I think the disambig page is a good idea and will be glad to implement it once the transwiki is done. --jonny-mt 05:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See you next Tuesday

See you next Tuesday (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

per WP:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary this is always going to be a stub so its encyclopedic possibilities are limited. Belongs in Wiktionary, where the phrase already has an entry. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wiktionary - Dicionary definitions do not belong here. Soxred93 (u t) 19:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete, per nominator. I can't see what encyclopedic information can be described here, although it might make a valid disambiguation page. Marasmusine (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
DAB would also be an option, since the article contains two references; I'll leave that to whomever closes this. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Traswiki Wikitionary, probably put difinition link on See You Next Tuesday, which is not the same. PwnerELITE (talk) 03:00, 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, with reference to WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] America 2.0

America 2.0 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Essay, personal reflection, OR. ukexpat (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as personal essay, unencyclopedic. Qworty (talk) 18:52, 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 00:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relative displacement of media

Relative displacement of media (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is nothing more than a personal essay. It's as though somebody were given a college assignment and, instead of turning it in to the teacher, posted it here instead. Qworty (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Unencyclopedic rambling. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Considering that the real Gerard Reid is a publisher in New Zealand (Pindar NZ), it's embarrassing that this grammar-challenged essay is being attributed to him. Whoever the author is, he does Mr. Reid no favors by using his name. Mandsford (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - That first sentence killed it for me. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, close to the heart of original research. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 20:15, 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. Wizardman 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Female Hercules

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

Filtering out for moths and the like, ghits return MySpace and YouTube, nothing that establishes notability. No RS coverage and a search turns up nothing at AllMusic either. Doesn't appear to meet any of WP:MUSIC's criteria. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:29, 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 Speedy delete per CSD:G1, G3, G10, A1, and A7, and I'm sure I could find another few. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vince Cordisco

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Vince Cordisco
Vince Cordisco (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

If not a hoax, then arguably libelous content. Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete: Non-notable and possibly a violation of WP:BLP. --SimpleParadox 18:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Wholly inappropriate article. Qworty (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WHEN-THE-PUMPKIN-KING-GIVES-UP-ON-AN-ARTICLE-YOU-KNOW-IT-SHOULD-BE-GONE :) In all seriousness, this does appear to be an attack page that slid through the recent changes patrolers. No relevant search engine hits of any type, no good version to which we can revert. I'd have no problem with a G10 speedy as an attack page. Good catch by the nom. Xymmax (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That almost should be a real shortcut.... —Quasirandom (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete complete and total dogshit. JuJube (talk) 08:15, 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 Speedy Delete G10 by user:Toddst1, non-admin closure. Have a nice day. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cheating online

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

Unsourced, unencyclopedic POV essay. Basically an attack on Amazon.com (the text was removed from that article as well). PROD removed after 4 days. Delete. MCB (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, for the above stated reasons. Rockhound (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, attack page. Nakon 18:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as a POV rant essay. 23skidoo (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy it now. It's garbage. Qworty (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • G10 Reads like an attack to me. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete for failing WP:NPOV ArcAngel (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Ballot stuffing which could use some material about such online fraud. Sources should not be difficult to find since this is obviously a notable issue. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:17, 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 keep. per WP:SNOW Milk’s Favorite Cookie (Talk) 20:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Springfield's state

Springfield's state (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article on a fictional subject with very little real-world notability. Written mostly in in-universe style. Consists almost entirely of original research. Only the final section contains anything that could be called a reliable source. I know some people hate the word, but this article is just pure fancruft. Terraxos (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC) (See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital City (The Simpsons), recently deleted for a similar reason. Terraxos (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

  • I'll come to what I think should be done to the article in a moment, but there's a GFDL issue I'd like to bring up. Some of the content in the Creation section of the Springfield article was merged in from Springfield's state (original content and merge). As this has occurred, the article should remain as a redirect with its history intact if it is deleted right? Anyway, on to the discussion. As most of the real world info is already in the Springfield article, I'll say merge any important plot details into at most, one section in Springfield (The Simpsons) and redirect. I've noticed that Scorpian0422 has started cleanup. Judging by his normal high quality edits I'm going to wait before making my suggestion for the article. Bill (talk|contribs) 18:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
After Scorpion0422's expansion of the real world aspect with more sources, Keep. Bill (talk|contribs) 23:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep While Capital City did deserve to be deleted, Springfield's state is in important and much talked about aspect of the show and I could easily dig up more articles that speculate about which one it is, which proves its notability per WP:FICT. -- Scorpion0422 19:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Enough coverage is given in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources in the article's current state to demonstrate notability, and as per Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) I also feel that a significant amount of other sources could very easily be found as well. Cirt (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep to consider merging with Springfield (The Simpsons). Per the existance of the last section, straight-out deletion would hurt more than it would help. A normal merge proposal would have been better. – sgeureka t•c 20:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Springfield (The Simpsons). While there are reliable sources that discuss it, the topic is not really something that lends itself to article-length treatment without generous dollops of original research and synthesis. The obvious point is that it was not intended to be any specific Springfield and so there is contradictory information in various episodes, and a number of actual Springfields have used this to claim the TV Springfield. That's, like, a paragraph or two. --Dhartung | Talk 20:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Update I have changed the location section so that it now is quite different from the one at Springfield (The Simpsons). There are several more sources (including two books) and every statement is sourced. -- Scorpion0422 20:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per all above.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 21:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep important, relevant, etc. Rhino131 (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Scorpion0422. Captain Infinity (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with Springfield (The Simpsons), per Dhartung. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 06:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per most everyone. Lots of real world relevance to go around. JuJube (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with Springfield (The Simpsons) - there's a fair amount of crossover information between the two articles. Once that is removed from a state article, you're left with a few paragraphs that can easily be put in the city article in a wider location context. Politics - represented by Joe Quimby, under the state governer whoever and senator Bob Arnold. Located in Springfield County, alongside Spittle County etc. HornetMike (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge per HornetMike. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 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 keep. --jonny-mt 05:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Kinnear

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

Biographical article on the president of a labour union local. Currently in the news only because his local is in contract negotiations, which is his only reason for notability. Article has been a magnet for vandalism to the point that it has had to be temporarily deleted, stubbed, and now semi-protected. Risker (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Response - No, believe it or not. Apparently our mailing lists have "no-index" tags on them, although I will confirm with David Gerard. Risker (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Bob Kinnear has been a prominent union leader in Toronto for some time, and is notable for more than just a single event. There's no doubt that this page was a target for vandalism in the last week or so, but the proper solution to this problem is to fix it, not remove the page entirely. I should note that there's currently a discussion taking place about this page on WikiEN-l, where the recent vandalism was introduced in an extremely sensationalized manner. I suspect that certain people want to "make an example" of this page (for what cause I'm not certain), which doesn't always make for healthy and rational discussion. In any event, the problem has been remedied and there's no need to target the page further. CJCurrie (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC) with minor adjustments 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • He's notable for more than just the one event — the article was actually created in 2006. It looks like he's only notable for one thing right now, because User:Moreschi deleted and restubbed the old article for WP:BLP issues, but there's an extensive edit history hiding in the deletion log. I'll take a few minutes to review the edit history to see if there's any content that can validly be restored or not. So I guess I'm on the keep side. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, it was created in 2006 when his local staged an 11-hour wildcat strike. There's a huge article about it, though heaven knows why; once again, a short-cycle news story that is worth (maximum) a paragraph in an article about the Toronto Transit Commission. I am still not seeing his notability here. There are at least a dozen more notable union leaders in Toronto, none of whom have articles; in fact, the president of the union itself doesn't have an article, nor does this particular local. It's kind of hard to be a notable president of a non-notable union local. Risker (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll reiterate that Bob Kinnear is a notable public figure in Toronto. There's the potential for a decent and balanced bio here, and I hope to write it shortly. CJCurrie (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Writing a longer page doesn't necessarily improve the notability issue. Whatever notability he has is directly related to labour actions taken by his union local, one of which he had no control over (the 2006 wildcat strike). I could *almost* see an article on the union local, which has a colourful history, but not Kinnear himself. Risker (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. it needed to be stubbed because it was vandalised, presumably by opponents in the union. That's only the first step, building it up again properly is the second. We can protect our articles without deleting them. People come to Wikipedia for solid basic information, not just major historical figures. Heading a major city union locals are very likely to be notable --and sourceable, with the right facilities. DGG (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Why are we engaging in random speculation about the identity of the vandals? This is exactly the kind of thing that is frequently mentioned as a problem with deletion debates. From the Wikipedia articles on the two strikes listed under the See also heading: "The shutdown left over a million commuters searching for alternative means of transport." (2006) "All bus, streetcar, subway and rapid transit systems in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, were shut down, leaving thousands of people stranded across the city." (2008) Even if you imagine that it's necessarily somebody with a personal beef, and I don't know why that would be important to determine here, the universe of possibilities is vast. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Canonical example of a marginally notable BLP that has, for a very long time (I reviewed the deleted revisions) had few or no folk watching it, until it became noticed because of persistent vandalism and POV pushing. Absent some commitment from more than one reliable editor here, to take ownership and keep it clean, it's an obvious article we would be better off without. Those voting Keep, are you personally committing to do so? If not you, then who? ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm planning to expand this page shortly (I'm not able to do so at the present moment). The page was created as a stub some time ago, and was never given the attention it deserved ... but the proper remedy for this situation is to expand it, not delete it. CJCurrie (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm more than willing to keep it on my watchlist and check for vandalism. Hell, I'll keep it as a bookmark and check it every day just in case I miss something on the watchlist. It only takes a few seconds to check history for a new edit. The problem is that there are loads of articles that don't get much attention from regular Wikipedia editors, but get loads of attention from the general public, either via forum posts, word of mouth, newspaper reports, and so on. These articles often gets lots of edits, or, worse, a small number of bad edits, and just aren't ever noticed by most users. I've came across articles in the past, for example, that have had pretty blatant vandalism on them, that has been there for months. These articles are often borderline-notable subjects that would never survive an AfD, but were either not picked up at NewPages, or were tagged for speedy, had the speedy declined, and the tagger couldn't be bothered taking it any further. From that point on, how many people will have that article on their watchlist? Not very many. Hence, vandalism to those articles often goes unnoticed if not picked up by RecentChanges. There should be some method for regular, trusted users (for example, the same users trusted to not abuse Rollback) to view a live list of "least watched articles", which would sort all articles by number of those same trusted users watching an article, and display the ones watched least. The content on the Bob Kinnear article, in my mind, if picked up by the media, could have been seen as much worse than the Seigenthaler incident.
Rant aside, this appears to be a relatively notable person, so for me it's a weak keep. Dreaded Walrus t c 18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making the argument for deleting not just this, but all marginally notable BLPs (that don't have dedicated editors to keep them clean and free of detrius) so cogently. You have highlighted precisely the problem facing us. There are X thousand dedicated editors here (where X is a small integer, to be sure... maybe 3, maybe 5, maybe 9, heck, maybe 30 if we are lucky, but I doubt it) and 250 thousand BLPs .. with 5% of them currently carrying insufficient cite tagging... how many have a problem? Far too many. How many can be taken under the wing of some or several dedicated editors? Far too few. Please note: I have absolutely no doubt you mean exactly what you say and you will, if this article survives, do admirably at keeping it clean... But there are not enough editors to solve this problem one at a time. ++Lar: t/c 19:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
(after edit conflicts) An (old) example of what I was talking about would be our article on Neil Buchanan. Back in 2006, there was often vandalism and nonsense added to that article that went undetected for ages. Look at this version, for example. At least half of that article is nonsense (and doesn't appear in the current version), though much of it had been in place for months, and much of it stayed in place for many months after that. This vandalism stayed in place for four days, but when it was manually removed, much of the rest was not spotted. Indeed, the other edit made is modifying a hoax sentence. The bit about the jumper being alleged to give him "magic powers" was removed two months after insertion. Another bit, about him being a recovering alcohol addict, was added in late May, and removed in early July. And yet still, in July, much of the hoax information from the April version I linked earlier is still in place. This kind of thing happens all the time, but this article is an example that pops into my head due to having the article linked to on a forum I was a member of, a few months before I started editing Wikipedia. Dreaded Walrus t c 19:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What section of WP:BIO does he fall under? Please describe in detail exactly why this union local leader, above all others, is notable. I cannot locate another similar biographical article anywhere on the encyclopedia, and I've been looking for a couple of days. Risker (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Basic criteria: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject"; thus a verifiable and NPOV article can be written without OR. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • One editor has found a single article specifically about Bob Kinnear in an independent source. I note that nobody has chosen to add it to the article; in fact, nobody has added anything to the article at this point. Risker (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • How many of them are primarily about Kinnear, and not about the labour action? Risker (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree more activity would be better, but inactivity during an AfD is not uncommon. Carcharoth (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "I cannot locate another similar biographical article anywhere on the encyclopedia, and I've been looking for a couple of days. " - Bob Crow is a similar article. Carcharoth (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Umm, no. Bob Crow is a national labour leader, not a local labour leader. Risker (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected. But you accept that some local leaders are notable enough for an article and that some national leaders are not notable enouh, or is being a leader of a national union inherently notable? For example, the national leaders listed at National Union of Railwaymen, going back to 1871. Should they all have articles? Carcharoth (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I cannot think of a single local union president who would warrant an article simply based on his or her union work. What I could see is an article like CAW Local 200, which discusses the business and activities of the union local and lists its presidents. Incidentally, CAW Local 222, another local of the same union, has a lot more members, and is related to the largest employer in Oshawa. Note the absence of an article on its local president, which I feel is entirely appropriate. He may be locally significant, but not encyclopedically so. Risker (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I would not object to merging to a new Amalgamated Transit Workers Union Local 113 article since he is known only for his union activities. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Will this article do: Toronto Transit Commission personnel - which was created a few months ago. I have added the fact that Kinnear is the Local 113 president as of this writing. This article could use some beefing up and cleanup, but seems to include the relevant information that can be expanded upon. Risker (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • How does that address BLP concerns? You've proposed moving the stuff about the living person from a relatively high-profile article that people had stated an intention to edit and watch, to a low-profile article that will probably have less people watching, and may, in time, end up as bad as this one was. The real problem is not having sufficient people to review bad-faith edits, or, arguably worse, having such edits reviewed too quickly and insufficiently, leading to the degradation of articles over time. The real solution is either getting more people with clue to edit Wikipedia (though to do this you need to avoid alienating them when they are new editors), or restricting the volume of editing or article creation. Carcharoth (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Umm...you seem to have missed my point, Carcharoth. Kinnear is not notable and should not have a biographical article. He is the president of a union local. It is reasonable to identify him by name in that role in the article that discusses the union local, as is common in many other articles. There is no reason to go any further than that in the Toronto Transit Commission personnel article, or anywhere else. As the president of the local, he is the main media contact for obtaining the union position on various points; thus, his name shows up frequently in the paper. Consider him the equivalent of the PR spokesperson for a business, very few of whom would be considered notable enough for a WP article. I get more hits for my company's PR director than I do for Kinnear, and I can quite assure you he is not notable at all; for that matter, neither is our company president. There is nothing about Kinnear that is noteworthy other than his presidency of the union local; thus, a biographical article about him is essentially a coatrack proxying as an article about the union local, because all of the "reliable sources" discuss him strictly from that perspective, with the occasional bit of "colour". Risker (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • My point was not that he should be mentioned any more than in passing in that article (I agree that he should only be mentioned in passing) but that if certain people want to edit Wikipedia to say things about this person, then if they can't do that on the article about him, they will still attempt to say the same things in the TTC personnel article. They shouldn't say these things anywhere on Wikipedia, of course, but that just shows that this is never a good reason for deleting anything. Your nomination statement said: "Article has been a magnet for vandalism to the point that it has had to be temporarily deleted, stubbed, and now semi-protected". If Toronto Transit Commission personnel ended up suffering the same problems, would you advocate deletion for that article? Either delete based on non-notability, or clean up/watch/protect, based on editing history. Don't delete articles merely because they are a "magnet for vandalism". That is my point. If something is clearly non-notable, then delete on that basis. If something is borderline notable, then delete if there is vandalism and BLP concerns. If something is notable and getting vandalised, then clean up and watchlist. But I agree. Reducing the number of targets for vandalism on the topic of this person, is ultimately a good idea. So I'm going to !vote merge and protection of the redirect. Carcharoth (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as multiple reliable editors have volunteered to maintain it in an un-vandalized condition. — CharlotteWebb 12:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • keep per CharlotteWebb and DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge to TTC articles. Nothing notable outside of those articles. All the sources point to TTC and it's history as the really relevant subject. --DHeyward (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable union leader. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm on the fence here: probably a weak keep, but we should keep the option of merging open for later if sufficient reliable sources cannot be found. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 23:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Smerge relevant information to Toronto Transit Commission personnel (and other relevant articles). Point the resulting redirect at Toronto Transit Commission personnel. Also, clean up the history, probably by deleting most of the revisions before the stubbing of the article, and protect the redirect to avoid future vandalism at that title. Carcharoth (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The history has already been cleaned up (by Moreschi) shortly after this AfD was created. Dreaded Walrus t c 22:57, 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 --JForget 00:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forscythe- de Steur

Forscythe- de Steur (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'd expect a security consulting firm involved in the Balkans that was bought out for $17.4 million to have some ghits, it doesn't apart from wiki mirrors. Searching the the alleged founder while filtering for security turns up nothing useful. Not sure if it's a hoax but there's no evidence whatsoever it's notable even accounting for typos. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I fing nothing on the now parent company, Suisse Securite Internationale. Dlohcierekim 20:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Editor going for the subtle long game here, but a company named "Suisse Securite Internationale" in Michigan buying up a firm with ... I dunno, a sort of Belgian name? Right. Hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I thought the Suisse company bouth the Michigan one?? Dlohcierekim 20:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
with monopoly $$? In other words, I agree with Dhartung. I didn't want to call it an out-an-out hoax since it's been here almost a year but it smelled ducky to me TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 20:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Good thing I was not drinking-- it would be coming out my nose. As you say, a long standing article that. . . quacks. Dlohcierekim 20:48, 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 Redirect to York Region District School Board--JForget 00:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Castlemore Public School

Castlemore Public School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable elementary school, google only turns up with this article, their official website and a few directory entries. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:09, 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 Redirect to Political parties in the United States--JForget 00:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Republican vs. Democrat

Republican vs. Democrat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is currently POV, not that that's my reason to delete. I find it hard to imagine how it could even refrain from being a POV article with a non-encyclopedic style, however. I can't really see this article becoming much more than an opinion center for what users think are the main issues between the parties. Being that it's so subject to POV, I think it should be deleted. JamieS93 17:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: One of the main points for my nom reason that I meant to mention was WP:OR, which others have subsequently brought up. I was actually in a hurry when I wrote the nom above - apologies if my logic for deletion wasn't very clear. --JamieS93 03:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Also, POV is not typically a valid reason to delete an article since non-neutrality can eaisly be fixed. An article consisting of solely original research, however (which I think is the bigger issue with this article), cannot. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. I'm not too sure why this article was created in the first place when this article already exists. Dusticomplain/compliment 17:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete How not to write a Wikipedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, no encyclopedic content (just WP:OR) and no value as a redirect. It's trivially verifiable that almost every single voter has an issue with which they vary from the platform of the party with which they identify. (At least this isn't the insulting chain mail that goes around on the order of "If you are an X, you believe that ... ") --Dhartung | Talk 20:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A half-started table with no real content. No potential. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete seems to be a pointless piece of garbage. Yahel Guhan 04:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per KleenupKrew. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:38, 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 keep. It is found to be a notable, and verifiable subject, about which independent research exists. The issue of renaming could be settled on the talkpage itself, and hasn't been discussed to consensus here yet, though there seem to be signs that the current title is preferred. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brain fart

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

The Brain Fart is not an actual psychological or neuroscience concept mcain (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Although I agree this does sound and read somewhat dubiously, the references presented seem authoritative and non-trivial. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • While the cited PNAS article may be fine (though it is not peer-reviewed), that article never mentions the term "brain fart". If the information in this article is deemed good, perhaps it should be moved to another article like Eriksen flanker task or similar. Right now there is a very specific experiment on a page with a general slang term as a title. mcain (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete it is not recognized as an official clinical disorder in my view. It's nothing more than a slang term that has been in use for years. ArcAngel (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep an actual phenomenon per the scientific paper mentioned in the external links,[27] for which "brain fart" is decidedly the common name (see WP:NAME) per the secondary source. I wouldn't object strenuously, however, to renaming the article to "maladaptive brain activity change" but that's a secondary issue to keeping the article around. -- Kendrick7talk 18:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep/merge The phenomenon sounds more like nodding off to me since the volunteers were lying down while performing a boring task. But it is all grist to our mill. The reason to delete is blatantly wrong since the article describes an experimental result in neuroscience. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I would argue that "commission errors under deadline" is a psychological concept, but "brain fart" is a catch-all slang term for "mistake". If the word mistake doesn't deserve its own article, why should brain fart? mcain (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Surely some mistake? The topic in this case is different - it is about a transient mental aberration. The title is not important since a change of title may be made without deletion. If you would prefer to call it Lapse of concentration, say, then you don't need AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but we need more information on the commonplace usage that led to the study. They diddn't invent the term. --Dhartung | Talk 20:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Such information would be useful. I've always called these mental hiccups myself, which is certainly less vulgar, imo. English borrows almost all it's names for similar concepts of mental phenom from the French (the article on Déjà vu itself lists several more like itself, including Presque vu, and L'esprit de l'escalier). So... anyone know the French word for fart? :-P -- Kendrick7talk 22:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The word is pet, whence Le Pétomane, and the perfectly mainstream nickname for the airy beignet, pet de nonne (nun's fart). --Dhartung | Talk 02:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Memory, maybe cover it there with a sentence. I'm not seeing how this article can be expanded meaningfully... sure we could add 100 instances of it being used in pop culture, but really, this is just a dictionary definition. --Rividian (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but rename. 'Brain fart' is not an appropriate article title for an encyclopaedia - there must be a less informal name for this phenomenon. Terraxos (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It is our policy that article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. There is no requirement for article names to be pretentious or formal. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I hate to say keep, it's a valid concept and seems properly verifiable. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to memory (per Rividian).  Frank  |  talk  17:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This concept is adequately explained in Wikitionary [28]. There is no additional information that merits a full Wikipedia article, however a redirect might be appropriate as it is a recognised informal (vulgar) term. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 20:08, 6 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 per WP:SNOW --JForget 00:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alu (runic)

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

This seems to be a dictionary definition (albeit of a very old word) and I don't see any potential for expansion to an encyclopedia article. What else is there to say besides what it means and how it's used? Powers T 16:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. First of all, it's not known what the term means and thus there is no definition. Secondly, the topic has always been a very significant subject of study in runology. Due to linguistic links, the object has been thought to signify a potential religious practice in Germanic paganism. More likely, however, the term originates as a means of invocation towards a god, as can be seen on an apparent inscription to Nanna and an inscription reading Alugod. One could, for example, add information about the apparent origins of the terms found on Raetian votive objects, giving potential further support to a Etruscan origin of the Runic alphabet. There's a lot that can be said about this word and its implications. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Not much activity on this article, although it links to topics which are busier. Notability is not established (IMHO) but looks like it could be. Totally outside my realm of knowledge, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. On the other hand, if it were useful, somebody would have expanded it...  Frank  |  talk  16:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. A worthwhile article on a historical / linguistic mystery. It goes with the territory that definitive answers on these sorts of things may be a long time in coming, and some may never be solved. Almost entirely the opposite of a dictionary definition; based on current knowledge, no sure definition can be supplied. Ultimately, every article is about a word. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Your last statement is baffling. Articles are about concepts; the title given to them is, or should be, immaterial to their content. Per WP:DICDEF, articles about words should be kept to a minimum; articles should instead address the concept that the word represents. Powers T 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
      • How do you identify a concept? You give it a name. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, but the name given is immaterial. Take the first example at WP:DICDEF: octopus. If an octopus was called a "swoonblatt" instead of an "octopus", our octopus article would be substantially the same, just replacing one word with another. That's the sign of an article that is about a concept. Articles about words are dependent on the word itself, a category which clearly describes this article Alu (runic). Now, we do have some articles about words, because some words have sufficient history and cultural relevance that an encyclopedic entry can be written about them. To say, though, as you did, that "every article is about a word" is just not true. Powers T 02:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
          • You're falling deeper into a philosophical paradox. Words exist because they have a history and reflect a shared culture of a community of speakers. The limits encompassed by the usage of a name are not immaterial; they define the subject, and so every stub ought to begin with a definition. Moreover, that example is palpably not true; octopus the word has a history worthy of notice, and poses usage problems, and our article on octopuses does not ignore them. At any rate, this article is not so much about a word, as it is about a repeated set of inscriptions that inspire curiosity about what they mean. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Bloodofox and Ihcoyc.--Berig (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a scholarly puzzle, which means scholars will ponder and possibly never come up with much -- but the fact that scholars ponder it in public means its notable by our definition. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per the above mentioned reasons. There is noteworthy material to be added to this article, e.g. with connections being made to Hittite and Greek in the academic literature. Aryaman (Enlist!) 19:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Bloodofox and the other above mentioned reasons. The article is still under construction, and has just recently been created. There is still work to do. --Skadinaujo (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, can't see any reason to delete. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Exactly the sort of article Wikipedia needs more of, and more expansion of. Potentially scholarly, potentially well sourcable, specific in scope (i.e. not indiscriminate information). KleenupKrew (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. As stated above this is the complete opposite of a dictionary definition. It contains plenty of encyclopedic information and no definition. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well I'm baffled. If this article was about an English word, it'd be deleted quickly -- all I see is some speculation about what it means and a list of places it's been used. We delete neologisms with more content than that. Powers T 20:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This article (though perhaps not in its present state) is not just about a word, it's about a runic inscription. Now, there are quite a few good articles about runic inscriptions, and I don't think anyone would seriously suggest deleting those. The difference here is that this particular inscription occurrs on over 20 artifacts spanning a time frame of roughly 600 years, which makes it highly noteworthy - such that several well-regarded experts have written on the subject. The article promises to have not only linguistic, but also historical, archeological and possibly religious import - on the grounds of its being an inscription, not merely a word. That cannot be said of your run-of-the-mill neologism article. Ergo: Let's wrap up this discussion and keep the article. Aryaman (Enlist!) 21:24, 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 speedy close as the nominator has withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete preferences (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 03:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Benatar

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

Non-notable academic. Only source provided is a scant listing on a faculty page of his school. No verifiable evidence provided that Benatar meets any of the standards of WP:PROF. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: Nomination withdrawn. It's pretty obvious now, given the references that have been added since this article was nominated for deletion, that Dr. Benatar mets notability standards for academics. There's no need for this to go on, so I've given User:Skomorokh an OK to close this. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - is a professor, a head of department at a University. Also done controversial work for which he has received press attention in WP:RS. They have considered him worthy of note. 59 google news hits [29]. None notable academics tend to have very few and only in local press. 177 mentions on google scholar [30] non notable academics who WP:RS don't consider notable, tend to have very few. Merkin's mum 16:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:PROF. Not all professors - even department heads - are automatically notable.  Frank  |  talk  16:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - refs have been provided; I'm convinced. (Article needs cleanup, of course, but they all have to start somewhere.)  Frank  |  talk  20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - is a professor, a head of department at a University. Also done controversial work for which he has received press attention in WP:RS. They have considered him worthy of note. 59 google news hits [31]. None notable academics tend to have very few and only in local press. 177 mentions on google scholar [32] non notable academics who WP:RS don't consider notable, tend to have very few. Merkin's mum 16:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:PROF. Please note that user User:Merkinsmum has voted twice Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
please note that I didn't mean to vote twice- if you look it is the same comment, it just came out twice due to some sort of 'glitch in the matrix' :) Merkin's mum 20:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I duuno, are those references "big" enough to establish notability? A campus paper and what seem to be a couple of small South African papers? To me that sounds like some local coverage, but that's just me. For me notability would be established with one major news source. ArcAngel (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
So, he's a professor in South Africa, being written about in South African newspapers. What's the problem? I wouldn't expect him to be written about necessarily in British or US papers, any more than I'd expect a British or American professor to be written about in South African papers. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per referencing added by Eastmain. Seems to show notability within his (very specific) and wrongheaded field. (reminds me of a Reagan quote, not to get too political... "All those in favor of abortion seem to have been born already..." or something like that... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment "very specific" field? This chap has published in some of the most highly respected bioethics and medical ethics journals in the world, check Google Scholar. Skomorokh 21:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • So we agree? Hard to tell. His field antinatalism, is very specific. He's cited in Google Scholar as an expert, or at least as a leading proponent of antinatalism. Not sure what you're going for here, Skomorokh. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is the Google Scholar archive of Benetar's published, peer reviewed work. Take a scan of the paper headings (sample: "Cloning and ethics", "Why the Naïve Argument against Moral Vegetarianism Really is Naïve", "Contemporary Jewish Ethics and Morality: A Reader", "Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animal Experimentation" "Beyond the haze of the tobacco bill debate", "Corporal Punishment") If all you see is antinatalism, then you are very much mistaken. Disclosure: I am the creator of the antinatalism article. Skomorokh 21:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Blanket statements aren't helpful, but sepcific references and links are. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC) — Like the one you just added. Thanks. Only concern is that the search is for "D Benatar," but I'll assume good faith that this is in fact David Benatar. I'm going to let this discussion go on a while, but notability is not as suspect as it was at first. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to note in case you haven't been watching the changes to the article today, Benatar has published in some of the most widely respected philosophy and medical journals in the world - Ethics, Journal of Applied Philosophy, Social Theory and Practice, American Philosophical Quarterly, QJM: An International Journal of Medicine, Journal of Law and Religion and the British Medical Journal. All of this verifiable through the Google Scholar link above. Per WP:PROF, our professor needs to be "more notable than the average college instructor/professor". An adjunct professor or even an associate would kill to be published in Ethics or the BMJ. Regards, Skomorokh 22:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
...for which we would probably have to evaluate against WP:BIO1E in order to determine whether or not to create an article, eh? ;-)  Frank  |  talk  23:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the article is now much different than it was when I nominated it. I'm pretty sure now of where this AfD outcome is headed, and that's fine with me now that we've established he's much more than just a university department head with a handful of published works. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Head of department in the highest-ranking university in Africa. His works have top citations of 48 & 38, with other works receiving only a handful per Google Scholar [33] (searches for "D Benatar" also pull up "Daniel Benatar", with papers in the cardiac field); these don't seem to be outstanding, but I admit I don't have much of a handle on what average citations would be in this field. He has published in top-quality specialist journals and also has one book with Oxford University Press. Several of the added references are merely to a campus/local newspaper, but others appear to be to the national press. On balance, I believe he meets both WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As it stands, it merits inclusion here. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Espresso Addict and Merkin's mum. The article could use some work, but the subject's notability seems to be established. Jakew (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep new references Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jakew. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 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. Lara❤Love 04:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wilson Golf Group

Wilson Golf Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be a notable conglomeration of golf course. Only sources are primary, and no third-party sources could easily be found.

Also listing a related non-notable golf course owned by them:

Cedar Creek Country Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Strictly an advertisement, not an article. Back to the clubhouse for this one. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: No references provided, seem like hoax. Dwilso 16:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The way the article is written is weird and it seemed liked a hoax, but I could wrong. Dwilso 17:12, 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. Black Kite 07:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Applewood Hills

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

Golf course that appears to be non-notable. I looked for third-party sources and found virtually nothing of worth. Wizardman 14:35, 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 Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Friedrich Kussin

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

A passing mention in a French language book about Arnhem Bridge does not confer notability for this Nazi official. Ghits are forums and other non reliable sources that simply confirm this fact. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 14:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - almost speedy delete, in fact. Very little notability here. Terraxos (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:37, 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 userfy. AFD closed early per WP:SNOW. While there were many delete votes, userfying will leave the content available, yet out of the mainspace which is the main point of this AFD. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] African Diamond Mines

African Diamond Mines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nothing more than another school essay User:Globalecon/Global Economics which duplicates much of the information at Blood diamond Diamond and Diamond (gemstone) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. This is an OR synthesis. PROD was removed by author with request not to delete or edit until after May 12, but being part of a class project (see WP:ANI#Use of Wikipedia for class project) does not exempt this from normal Wikipedia standards. Note to closing admin: if result is delete, consider userfying to preserve it till the project is over. JohnCD (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Nakon 15:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, just a professor trying to use WP as a free webhost. Czolgolz (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as this is synthesis / original research that duplicates material found in exisiting articles (as noted by nom). Nothing against class projects, but they do need to meet policy. (And I concur with JohnCD about the userfy). Bfigura (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin The author of the page attempted (incorrectly) to put an {{inuse}} tag on the article which was removed. I recommend that this AFD be stalled until the author of the page is finished with the revision(s) he/she is attempting to make to the page. Dusticomplain/compliment 16:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No. That note was put there on all pages for this class in an attempt to draw out the deletion process. It's not being used in its intended purpose. Protonk (talk) 05:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above. Hut 8.5 16:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above, recommend userfication to allow student to finish his/her project TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep This article has the potential to be a really good and interesting. Its a shame its not up to wikipedia's standards and the references are all messed up. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think Travellingcari has a good suggestion. If it's not up to mainspace standards why not userfy. If it's userfied for a couple weeks it'd do no harm, and would show good faith to someone who may become a further contributor.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Userfy sounds entirely reasonable to me. It's not worth keeping at the moment, but if improved, it could be. Terraxos (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Userfy until it can be developed into an article deserving of inclusion in the encyclopedia. Enigma message 03:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Would need a complete 100% rewrite to be even remotely acceptable, and the topic is already solidly covered in other articles (i.e. Blood diamond). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as illegitimate use of WP as free webhosting; Userfying was a lost option when the professor refused to listen. ThuranX (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This is apart of a school project that is using Wikipeda as its personal web host. There's already an article about this topic and beside this is an essay anyhow. Next time, the professor should use WordPress, Blogger or LiveJournal, but Wikipedia is NOT a free web host Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 14:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete duplicates existing articles, novel synthesis and original research, the few cited facts can be added back to other articles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:COATRACK refers. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 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 Keep. Lara❤Love 01:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Five Dysfunctions of a Team

The Five Dysfunctions of a Team (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I kind of hate to do this since the page's author e-mailed me asking for help (apparently this is part of a class project), but I just don't see any notability per WP:BOOK. As with most books, I'm finding about eight billion sites to buy the book from, but no substantial third-party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. I frankly would take a somewhat harder line on management fad or fad-wannabe books, and require clear indicia of notability from the beginning. The promotional motive in many of these articles is fairly obvious; and most of the texts do little more than rehash platitudes with a freshly minted jargon. This contains no references that back up its claims about circulation, assuming that they are enough; and for material of this nature, we don't really need to look for ourselves. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of notability: the only references are the web-site of "the table group - a patrick lencioni company", i.e. the author's. JohnCD (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Lots of references indicating notability. Just add a couple to the article and we're done. What we need is something on the Five Dysfunctions of AFD :). 1. Inability to find sources. 2. Indulge prejudices. 3. Failure to look past the current content. ... Colonel Warden (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BK and none of the references gleaned from Google seem to be non-trivial, most are catalog listings and press releases. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • A cursory search indicates that this book is a best-seller; that it has significant influence; that it is covered in major news media; and that the author has sold millions. I have added some cites to demonstrate this. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Needs more -- so far there's one third-party link demonstrating notability. (Best-seller is an indicator of notability, but doesn't prove it.) Holding off on !voting pending further possible work. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP Book has been reviewed in nearly half a dozen periodicals tracked by academic databases, including the Harvard Business Review. I've included the list on the article page. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Firefly322. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Said further work has demonstrated notability. Those reviews could use wikifying and an encyclopedic summary, but that's a content issue. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: A quick look at Google Scholar [34] shows a fair number of academic references to this particular title and it is the subject of some academic study per WP:BK. – Zedla (talk) 00:43, 8 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. GRBerry 17:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] XBLite

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

XBLite is an insignificant contribution to the space of BASIC languages and therefore should be removed. The user community is miniscule. For example, the Google group for XBlite, which is the main community vehicle, is only comprised of several hundred users, a very few number of which are active.

Furthermore, the purpose of the article appears to be more about advertising than anything else. 209.159.98.1 (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article's talk page. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 13:15, 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. Veinor (talk to me) 01:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cafe Cameroon

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

Contested prod, one local TV source, No vote F (talk) 12:58, 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 keep (snowball/non admin). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Queen of the Netherlands (ship)

Queen of the Netherlands (ship) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nn ship. Creator has removed PROD, and deleted article issues tags, claiming notability established. Only 2 sources given. One is a mere directory of ships, which confers no notability, the other is a chat forum, and hence not a RS. No reliable source given for the tenuous claims to notability by association with notable events Mayalld (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete: Fails WP:V. Even if (as the article creator alleges) this vessel has participated in the cleanup after a disaster or two, where are the reliable sources which are both about the vessel and are non-trivial in nature? I'm sure there must be Some Cargo Barge that likewise participated in cleanup after 9/11, but that's not notable either.  RGTraynor  12:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails the verifiability test; no reliable sources can back up the info here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The recovery was aided by the Queen of the Netherlands, a salvage ship known as the world's largest floating vacuum cleaner, which sucked fragments of the plane off the bottom of St. Margaret's Bay, including components that were later implicated in the crash.NOVA Giant dredging ship heads for bay after protests[35] and lots more. --Dhartung | Talk 20:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, there are sources that mention the ship, but the articles are not about the ship, so they don't meet WP:N. Mayalld (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Being the subject of secondary sources is what's stipulated as important to notability guidelines. Those same guidelines don't require that "entire articles" must be written about a topic, but that it receives significant coverage by secondary sources, even if that coverage is within an article/book/story/report about a broader subject (being "the primary subject of..." was taken out of WP:NOTABILITY and related guidelines long ago).--Oakshade (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per significant secondary coverage as provided by Dhartung. --Oakshade (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an notable and important ship for both the investigation into the Swissair 111 crash and the dredging of Port Philip Bay. Both are extremely notable issues and this ship definitely deserves to be here to back up both of those pages. Mvjs (talk) 07:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep A quick Google search brought up dozens or references to the ship, and yes, some about it. Involved in at least two notable events, and exactly the sort of subject Wikipedia should cover. --Canley (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Articles on individual ships are generally kept with sufficient sourcing, which this appears to have. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, verifiable but not notable. Stifle (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - A stub with four apparently RS, plus involvement per Canley — Bellhalla (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - "The world's largest floating vacuum cleaner", the subject is notable, the article is a stub, don't be defeatist - improve it ClemMcGann (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable ship playing a notable role in notable events. Benea (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
ghits for "Queen of the Netherlands dredger" producers nearly 300 results. Also reports here of her involvement in the giant land reclamation schemes in Dubai. There is no hard and fast guideline about the notability of ships, some claim that any ship is notable, and one that has attracted so much attention from the world's media is quite comfortably notable. Benea (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • WikiProjects notified: WikiProject Ships and WikiProject Netherlands. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - In addition to arguments already made, notability of the topic does not equal quality of the article. A (perceived) shortage of reliable sources in an article doesn't imply that none exist. Placing a call for improvement on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Netherlands and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships would surely have sufficed. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Sufficiently notable. Article is a stub but that will change over time and is not reason for deletion. Arnoutf (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • keepi agree with Arnoutf. it is a stub and should instead be marked as one not deleted.ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above arguments: several reliable sources, participation in high-profile events, surely passes WP:N. Parsecboy (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anything termed as colorfully as "world's largest floating vacuum cleaner" is worth having an article about. doncram (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Adequately notable, in the process of expansion. Davido321 (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. Meets the core content policies of verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view. EJF (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per the snowstorm above - plenty of sources to establish notability and verify information. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC).
  • Keep - as one of the editors with of the Australian Maritime History project the information given I would view as so far is sufficient - and a call for improvement at that particular project page would be far more appopriate - SatuSuro 05:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - numerous references in the Melbourne newspaper The Age - link in relation to the useo f the ship on the Port_Phillip_Channel_Deepening_Project. Wongm (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per source provided by Dhart. Five Years 11:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. As multiple references have now been supplied. --Brad (talk) 19:24, 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 --JForget 00:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Babak andishmand

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

This article would normally merit a speedy, I think, but was previously prodded and prod tag was removed, so I bring it here to AfD. The accomplishments listed in the article do not establish any notability. Starting artist, who is not notable yet. Crusio (talk) 11:01, 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 00:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scuffleball

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

Fails the notability criteria. No coverage in reliable sources. --Snigbrook (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as the only two Google News hits (here [38]) are a couple of baseball articles that use the word in a manner that has nothing to do with this alleged new sport. Not verifiable, not notable. - Dravecky (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete: per G4 as recreation of previously deleted material.  RGTraynor  13:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The article was not undeleted at deletion review, and is still the same as it was when deleted. I'm not sure if G4 applies or not but it looks like it does. --Snigbrook (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, if it doesn't apply, I'm comfy with Delete as non-notable and without reliable sources; all I could find was the organization's own website.  RGTraynor  13:58, 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 Keep, nomination withdrawn. Davewild (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jemmal

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

A quick Google search turns up, no city with this name. There are results for a person with the name. Maybe a hoax? Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 10:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep the city does exist: results on google search and maps. I have added an {{unreferenced}} tag to the article --Snigbrook (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Good article, but needs to be renamed "Jemmal, Tunisia" because that's proper Grammar. Dwilso 11:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename as above, the city in Tunisia exists and is thus notable. - Dravecky (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdraw it seems I didn't look hard enough... Man that's embarassing... Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 11:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - place exists, meets WP:NPT. No need to rename, as no disambig. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:52, 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 00:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoon-style shooter

Cartoon-style shooter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod; see also WT:VG discussion. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete: The prodder cited WP:NEO with his proposed deletion, it appears to simply be a new marketing term for an old concept, mostly relating to Battlefield Heroes. The "genre" itself is better classified as a graphical style rather than an actual genre, mainly because cartoon-style graphics and a humourous gameplay are not necessarily co-existant (XIII and its comic-book style is example of this). The term is not a widely used one, and as such any coverage in encyclopedic context is probably better left to individual game articles and the overall genre articles such as action game and first-person shooter. -- Sabre (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Action game is a Neologism, no significant or reliable news coverage on term per google/google news search.  Atyndall93 | talk  10:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Gameplay and graphics are two separate axes when considering a video game. If the term is used by either Valve or EA per marketing, redirect to Action game, First-person shooter, or some other better home where mention of this term is appropriate. --MASEM 12:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete or merge to First person shooter - visual style or atmosphere aren't responsible for game genres. We don't create separate articles for "fantasy strategy game" and "space strategy game" -- warcraft and starcraft are considered part of the same genre because they have basically the same gameplay. Allowing this article to exist could lead to an explosion of too many game genre articles. It would also make zero sense to have Team Fortress Classic and Team Fortress 2 as two different genres. We know they're the same game at the core. ... besides that, this is a non notable synthesis of two notable concepts: cartoons and first person shooters. I can't emphasize enough how important it is to kill this article. Randomran (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not merge. There are shooters with cartoony graphics, sure. But the idea that this constitutes a genre (or even subgenre) seems to be a product of the author's imagination. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and strongly oppose merge of any type. This is not a subgenre, nor can I envision it becoming an aknowledged subgenre at any time in any universe. -Verdatum (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: I'd say merge, but there's nothing to merge the wouldn't need to be rewritten anyways. There is no such genre as Cartoon-style shooters. There are shooters that use cartoony styles. There are also RPGs, racing games, etc... It's just a style choice, not a genre. Unless you wanna call Half-Life 2 a "Life-like graphics FPS". --AeronPrometheus (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have to agree there's no indication that this term is in use or even considered an "emerging" genre (especially since the idea of "cartoon-like" games of this sort have been around for quite awhile. Fear Effect for the old PS1 comes to mind.) 23skidoo (talk) 21:01, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Clear consensus that the subject satisfies notability criteria. WilliamH (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cutler J. Cleveland

Cutler J. Cleveland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

It seems possible that the person could be very marginally notable, but the article as it is now is pure advertising, just a list of his awards. I think it's a big NPOV problem. Not to mention it has no references. I would say it's a big enough problem we should delete it and possibly start over if we find any solid references to use. delldot talk 09:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I've tried to tinker with it and found a reference or two. SGGH speak! 09:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Definitely better than before, but has he been mentioned in the press or other independent sources? delldot talk 09:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Afd is not for article cleanup. Some searching shows he is well published (both scholarly articles and books), well cited in other scholarly articles etc.. Appears ample sources for an article - subject appears to pass biographical notability particularly the The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. bit - Peripitus (Talk) 10:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep a google books/scholar search yields numerous books in which this man was written/been mentioned. He definitely meets the WP:BIO notability requirements in that he has been mentioned in many notable and reliable sources.  Atyndall93 | talk  10:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Full professor at major university, editor-in-chief of two specialist encyclopedias, on national advisory committee and recipient of several national awards. One of his books gained 183 citations per Google Scholar;[39] he is also the first author on a paper in Science with 135 citations, and has another four papers with citations of >= 40 per GS. Seems to meet my understanding of WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definitely passes WP:PROF. However, the article does need better sourcing and to have references added. Nsk92 (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep editor-in-chief of the Digital Universe Encyclopedia of Earth, a very major project indeed. The article is OK as it is, but could be much expanded. SNOW CLOSE recommended. "Just a list of his awards" is what, after all, proves notability beyond question. DGG (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Hard to imagine how this person fails notability. Over 30 peer-reviewed publications in a very cursory examination of Google Scholar, and dozens of references in books from Google Scholar.--Keithpickering (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that Keith Pickering is a friend of Cleveland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 08:13, 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. There is a possibly notable event here, but not a notable person; she is clearly only notable for the manner in which she died, and thus falls foul of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. (There is no comparison to Hrant Dink, who was notable before his death). There is a possibility that this could be incorporated into an article about Brides on tour which appears to have enough written about it in reliable sources to form an article; please contact me if you wish to have the deleted content from this article to do so. Black Kite 07:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pippa Bacca

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

Was speedied for DB bio, however given the level of contribution by users I suspect there may be ground for some discussion. The argument is either non notable biography, or notable murder for the media coverage and the charity circumstances and back story. SGGH speak! 08:06, 29 April 2008

  • Delete - clearly is a news article not an encyclopaedic topic - Peripitus (Talk) 10:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete her biography is based on one event, her murder, which I believe is against WP:BIO1E. I suggest creating an article on Brides on tour (the event she participated in) and rewriting her death into the article.  Atyndall93 | talk 
  • Keep stands in line with Hrant Dink. Her tragically failed mission (and following repercussions) already became part of Turkey's modern history. Sometimes people enter in fact the history books and become noteworthy, just by being killed - notwithstanding the quoted Wiki rule that should be applied carefully. For a famous case in German history see Benno Ohnesorg. --DaQuirin (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:ONEEVENT. Notable for way she died. Bstone (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as the article simply recounts the events without discussing how international the coverage was or what the Turkish media reaction was (which was pretty significant, as I understand, but I can't judge HOW significant). A Brides on Tour article might be a better way to handle this, as her partner is continuing with the project. --Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The article is in bad shape, true. For the interesting debate around Pippa Bacca see here: "The terrible truth of the story is that like most martyrs for a cause, Pippa, through her death may have actually accomplished more for peace than she would have, had her walk been completed without incident. Her murder has sent a powerful message about peace and about the continuing struggle of women for personal safety." If the article stands the deletion vote, I am ready to expand the article. Just to note: The same discussion took place with the Italian and German articles. In both cases, the result was to keep the article for the time being. --DaQuirin (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for her death to send a message it must be talked about and broadly discussed. The article should be expanded. It is important to learn what her death has actually accomplished.

Alexb@cut-the-knot.com (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

    • Unfortunately Wikipedia is not a memorial (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not) there are other places on the web more suitable for that. SGGH speak! 16:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I do not quite understand this argument. An article is not an obituary, certainly. Her death, tragic as it is, may serve as a trigger event for presenting her ideas, ideas that are shared by an awful number of people. I expect the article to be expanded. Alexb@cut-the-knot.com (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. If kept, move to her full name. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia naming conventions state that the most common term in the outside world is the article title (hence Madonna being an article title, not her name) and Pippa Bacca is how she has been referred to in all news coverage and the websites on her charity. SGGH speak! 13:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep sufficiently notable event, because of the international coverage. DGG (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I just read about her in NewsWeek and wanted to find out more. This page was helpful in several ways and will be helpful to others in the future. — 156.33.41.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


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

The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 04:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ebony (album)

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

Non-notable unreleased album. No sources provided, no reliable sources found. Rolling Stone has a blank placeholder[40], so does MTV[41][42]. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:32, 23 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) 08:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - unreleased, uncommented on and not cared about in the wider world - Peripitus (Talk) 10:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The album is unreleased and without significant coverage in reliable sources, as such it fails WP:MUSIC#Albums ("unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources") notability criteria.  Atyndall93 | talk  11:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of reliable third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the album was unreleased, how come the article includes a cover image? 23skidoo (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - Happens often enough: a press release, advert, etc. will include a cover. Sometimes an unreleased album will leak and a fan will create a "cover" that never was to circulate with the boot. Or the album might have been close enough to release that sites like amazon, et al. put up "pre-order" pages, including the cover. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:43, 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. Lara❤Love 04:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Word Ways: Going Places with Literacy

Word Ways: Going Places with Literacy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability. -Icewedge (talk) 04:23, 23 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) 07:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no indication of notability via google search/news search, appears to fail all WP:NB notability criteria.  Atyndall93 | talk  11:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence of notability that I can see. Terraxos (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 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. Lara❤Love 01:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Psilalonia Square

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

It's a town square and doesn't appear to be a notable one in English (although that at least confirms existence) or Greek, where its existence is only confirmed in wiki mirrors. This article is nothing more than an unsourced travel guide and without evidence of notability , there's nothing with which to improve it. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 02:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- ~ Eóin (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. It has no sources, but sounds authentic enough. Badly written - happy to reconsider my vote though. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 03:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Perhaps its Greek name is Πλατεία Ψηλαλώνια, but I'm not sure. There's a reference to its fountain at a travel website with that "spelling" [43]. --Oakshade (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Could be, I e-mailed an off-wiki friend from Greece to see if she can shed any insight. It's either a bad spelling in both languages or an extrememly non-notable town square as even my undergraduate college quad gets more ghits TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 13:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. One can get additional Google hits by searching for "Psila Alonia" (which is how the name is spelled/transliterated in our article Patras). No opinion at this time on whether the square is notable enough for an article. Deor (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Geographic locations, and especially public ones, are inherently notable, although this one appears to be a borderline case.--Berig (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment where is that? I know towns are notable, but I've never seen any inherent notability for town squares. That's stretching the definition of a geographic location since town squares are essentially man-made constructs due to the development of commerce around one particular area TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I said that it's a borderline case, but even fountains, have articles here and the article claims that Psialonia square has both a monument and a fountain in addition to other things.--Berig (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Ahh ok, thought you said there was inherent notability. My mistake. With regard to other stuff, that's neither here nor there. We can't verify the claims because we can barely prove it exists. Just don't think it's a notable square. We'll see where this goes. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 23:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright, no one has added any references, or pictures, so I retract my keep vote.--Berig (talk) 16:03, 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, ~~~~--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I relisted this since I think further discussion is needed but won't formally weigh in with a !vote. We do have a photo of this place and perhaps the editor who uploaded it, User:Curunvir, could shed more light on the importance or non-importance of this square. The problem seems to be a lack of English language sources for this place, at least on the internet. I can't help but wonder though how this square compares with, say, Grand Army Plaza in my own neighborhood (a pretty small patch of land, but one which it's easy to find sources for) or the far less notable Sherman Square (also in NYC, though I'd never heard of it even though I've been at 72nd and Broadway at least a hundred times). It would be good to hear from some editors who work on Greece-related articles and/or editors with some knowledge of our general approach to notable public spaces in notable cities (which Patras certainly is). I would also point out that we do have a category called Streets and squares in Patras which lists several other squares including Georgiou I Square and Olga Square. All of these articles were created by User:Pumpie who was informed of this AfD but has not signed in since April 20th.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 'keep' - this link has a rather instructive plan from google earth - I think the square's probably not very notable from an architectural point of view, but from an urban design and planning point of view, it's clearly one of the bigger public spaces in a city whose grain at that point is pretty dense. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge either to Patras or the appropriate neighborhood article (I couldn't figure out which one it was). According to the current proposed form of WP:NPT, "A neighborhood or sub-section of a city/town/village should be incorporated in the article about the town or city it is located in, unless it has exceptional notability of its own.", notability is not established as anything beyond a part of a city. It begins to encroach on travel guide type information, but not to any extremes, it is (generally) giving detail, not advice. -Verdatum (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to the article on the city/neighbourhood, until we have evidence of independent notability. There's nothing much wrong with this article at the moment, except that it's just not clear that this is a particularly notable location. If it turns out it is, the article can always be un-merged later. Terraxos (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reasons summed up by Terraxos and Stifle. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:47, 8 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. The discussion below sufficiently addresses the issue of continued media raised in the nomination. --jonny-mt 03:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Graves

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

Started as a WP:BLP disaster which I've cleared a bit but still just an individual sentenced to death who's conviction was overturned. Currently about to start his second trial. That is all in terms of notability and while it make the news (the Austin Chronicle article is something else), he doesn't seem to be the subject of continued media interest. I don't know of any similar case other than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choctaw Three. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete: Person not notable enough, neither is the whole article. Dwilso 12:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 16:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing here suggests that Graves is particularly notable. 23skidoo (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per 23skidoo. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Being the primary subject of an in depth CBS News piece and many other reliable secondary sources and his case has long term implications on various judicial procedures is not notable? Many of the secondary sources about this person are from 2000, yet there are more that are from 2006-2007, from reliable sources like the Houston Chronicle [44][45]. I can't believe I'm the only current "keep" vote. --Oakshade (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep this has real significance as a widely publicized case of what on the face of it would seem some remarkable misconduct by the prosecution. But the other references should be addedDGG (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment But my concern is whether this falls under "continued media interest" or is this a one-time quick news story? Is the notability simply because of the overturned conviction? If so, then everyone at Overturned convictions in the United States is notable including the deleted Choctaw three mentioned above or perhaps only when they fall into larger tales, like Mychal Bell. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The media coverage so far spans many years. Media coverage of a person does not need to go into infinity for them to be considered notable. --Oakshade (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Enough coverage in reliable sources over a significant period of time to establish notability but suggest maybe renaming the article to be about the crime, trial and appeals rather than as a bio. (not sure what the title would be though!) Davewild (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree on renaming. Rodney King for example is about the guy and the event. I think there is sufficient information to keep it focused on him. If it were more about the conduct of the prosecutors or something else, then I would understand renaming to Anthony Grave trial or something similar. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per significant coverage over a period of time. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:20, 7 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 Even though the keep votes are all weak, I believe Stifles remark should also be treated as a weak delete, or a keep, since his conditions, citations to ensure verifiability, is later ensured. Since the nom is neutral, I conclude the consensus here is to keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Phillips (actor)

Josh Phillips (actor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tagged A7 and deleted, however, an editor expressed concerns so I am listing the article here. No opinion from my side. Tone 06:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails WP:BIO as a completely unnotable voice actor. The speedy was right, in my opinion, as the one who originally tagged it. Collectonian (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have not been able to locate any other sources. I changed my vote to weak keep per the additional sources I've identified. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions- AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I undid this inclusion. I don't think voice actors count as visual artists. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Ah, sorry about that. He's a live action actor as well, though it appears his claim to fame is voice over work AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Admittedly, I didn't add as much as info as I probably should when I made this article, though it could and should be improved, even with the little info you guys have already found. If you have any new relevant info, please feel free to add to the article.Rogue Commander (talk) 02:10, 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 Speedy delete, non-admin closure. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 16:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Have a crack

Have a crack (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Definition - surely more wiktionary suitable than here? asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 05:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as, in my opinion, this teeters on being either an A1 and/or G1 CSD. --Gwguffey (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Already in Wiktionary under wikt:crack (noun sense #8). Zetawoof(ζ) 07:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete clearly Wiktionary entry Stephenb (Talk) 07:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • CSD added - As per CSD A5. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 16:05, 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 00:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Republigay

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

Neologism per WP:NEO. John Nagle (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC) --John Nagle (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Prod" was deleted, so we have to do this the hard way. Found on RC patrol. Google shows this term used only in a few blogs. Article close to being an attack article. Dictdef. No useful article content. --John Nagle (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. I can't find any reliable sources, just blogs and fora and such. Oh, and a bunch of sites that want to sell it as a domain name. AnturiaethwrTalk 05:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just a dictionary definition of a rarely used neologism. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As per previous comments Ecoleetage (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete: No references provided, we already have an article on Neoconservatives, but thanks. Dwilso 08:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I hope you're not trying to imply that "neoconservative" = "gay Republican". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable term, no reliable third party sources Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As the original PROD'er (I declined a speedy), I could find nothing but blogs as references, so non-notable neologism. Acroterion (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. nneonneo talk 18:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable neologism. X Marx The Spot (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • DoNotDelete citations and references to this relatively novel term have been added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JD222 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
A single blog entry does nothing to indicate notability or currency of this term: blogs are not useful references. Acroterion (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Query: Are article creator Mattburbank (talk · contribs) (only article Republigay) and author of comment above JD222 (talk · contribs) (new account, only edit is to this AfD) the same person? --John Nagle (talk) 02:58, 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 00:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Don Rumsfeld & Dick Cheney In Hell

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Don Rumsfeld & Dick Cheney In Hell
Don Rumsfeld & Dick Cheney In Hell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable vanity-press book. Entry seems to have been created by author. Graymornings (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as a non-notable book failing WP:BK. No points awarded for the COI either Bfigura (talk) 04:25, 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. east.718 at 04:28, April 30, 2008

[edit] Study abroad information

Study abroad information (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another article resulting from the inappropriate class project discussed at WP:ANI#Use of Wikipedia for class project (see also User:Globalecon/Global Economics). This one violates multiple sections of WP:NOT, especially WP:NOTGUIDE. Deor (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete or merge into Study abroad, which seems equipped to handle any reliable information this article has. (I'd like to express my displeasure at a professor's urging his class to use Wikipedia as a webhost.) AnturiaethwrTalk 03:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete indeed, Wikipedia is not a howto guide. Not convinced there's something worth merging here. Bfigura (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as a howto guide, and totally inappropriate title, since it's only about the US. 70.55.84.13 (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a howto guide. Hut 8.5 06:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and userfy I'm afraid this article definitely and multiply violates WP:NOT. Suggest moving it to User:Chamnessmw/Study abroad information so she/he can continue to work on it. It's a pity the professor who organized the project didn't read Wikipedia:School and university projects first. Many of the pitfalls could have been avoided. Voceditenore (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Nakon 15:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP is not a free webhost. Czolgolz (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete this belongs on wikihow Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP is not a how-to guide.--Berig (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge anything salvageable into Study abroad else Delete as per nom. X Marx The Spot (talk) 03:41, 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. Lara❤Love 04:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Long Lost Son

Long Lost Son (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not really sure this film meets WP:MOVIE, based on [52] and [53]. The latter is the NY times that simply mentions the film as a directory/guide. Let's see what the community thinks about this. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:15, 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, no reliable sources to establish notability, probably original research. Davewild (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Jr. What's On Next?

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Nick Jr. What's On Next?
Nick Jr. What's On Next? (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is sorely lacking context so it's not even entirely clear what the article is about. It's also completely unreferenced so verifying the content is very hard and I'm very skeptical of the overall importance of an article which, apparently, discusses various in-between-shows blurbs on Nick Jr.. Pichpich (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete, don't merge. Think you figured it out. Article is probably impressive work for its author, but it would take a miracle to make this WP:N. Sorry WMA10! Potatoswatter (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not finding any third-party coverage of the bumpers between kids' TV shows. If there is any to be found, I will be amazed. (Also: whoa, that's a lot of plot summary. Shows dedication, if nothing else.) AnturiaethwrTalk 03:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Seriously? An article about 'coming up next' bumpers? I can't cite any policy that I could think of beyond WP:OR, because this seems like a very unlikely article subject. Nate • (chatter) 04:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Actually (in response to Mrschimpf) I believe there are articles on similar promotions, but in this case all we have is what appears to be unsourced memories of this promotion, so there's no way of telling what's accurate here or not. And the second sentence of the lead, "This quit as of the Nick Jr. slogan "Nick Jr. is Where I Play to Learn." ranks as one of the most illiterate sentences I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I'm saying "weak delete" as there's a possibility of someone rescuing this article, but I won't lose sleep if it goes. 23skidoo (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Usually the article scope is limited to network imaging and star campaigns, but not basic details like 'you're watching "show" on "network"' or '"show" is next on "network"'. Nate • (chatter) 21:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination, oh heavens no. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per others. There is no reason for this to exist. Non-notable, difficult to verify, not suitable for an encyclopedia. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 16:41, 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 Merge and Redirect to Morton-on-Swale (merge has already taken place) as per usual for primary schools and the lack of coverage to establich independent notability. Davewild (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ainderby Steeple Church of England Primary School

Ainderby Steeple Church of England Primary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD) - Delete Non-notable school in an article without verifiable sources or links to independent media coverage. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - now provided in the merge target. TerriersFan (talk) 00:01, 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. Lara❤Love 04:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] African American Drug Kingpins of New York City

African American Drug Kingpins of New York City (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article offers nothing in the way of notability, research, verifiable sources or encyclopedic relevance. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete recommend a subcategory of category:drug lords, category:New York drug lords. Potatoswatter (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR Yahel Guhan 06:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - if we must track this (questionable to me, but I'm only one editor), let's use a category.  Frank  |  talk  16:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Awful article Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. We have categories for things like this.--Berig (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Category material. —Aryaman (Enlist!) 01:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Of course, it is lacking in notability, since it was vandalized and virtually blanked on 03:06, 22 September 2007 by User:72.80.237.235. The pre-vandalized version, which I just restored, was plenty notable. Check it out—but behave yourselves. As for the nominator saying it lacks research, and another voter saying it has too much, all I can say is, some people want this material to go away, logic be damned. 24.90.201.232 (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Good cath, 24.90.201.232. Keep devandalized version. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fork. All materials in this article already exist elsewhere. Also, why do we keep a page on "African American Drug Kingpins of New York City"? Race discrimination or what. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:43, 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 Redirect. Lara❤Love 17:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irvington Middle School

Irvington Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Horribly written, unsourced article about a non-notable school. Google doesn't reveal anything convincing. — Wenli (reply here) 02:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(talk) 09:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge/redirect to Irvington, New York#Education per usual. TerriersFan (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete; my principal reason is that it's not notable. However, do we have a place to redirect all this middle-school effort? These could easily be a new crop of editors if we didn't have to cut them off at the knees all the time...  Frank  |  talk  16:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - the normal place would be Irvington Union Free School District if someone creates it. Failing that Irvington, New York#Education is just fine, and the school is mentioned there. In view of your sentiments I fail to understand why you are resisting a redirect? TerriersFan (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Response - my use of the word "redirect" was a poor choice of words. What I meant was channel efforts of these middle-school editors. They are interested and have technical editing ability. I fear we drive them away, seeming as if we are an exclusive club, and I wonder if we have a place - other than the sandbox - to direct them toward. (See Rawbacon's comment below.)  Frank  |  talk  14:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Irvington, New York#Education, or move to Irvington Union Free School District and broaden. Also, cut the knees off the editors creating these articles per Frank. ;) CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Gene93k. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It: I think the page is fine...Many people from Irvington Middle School enjoy this article and will continue to post on it, so I do not find the information unimportant. I don't understand why we can't just leave up this page and let these who worked hard to make a page so they could say that their school has a wikipedia page...can't we just let the kids have their fun? What will it cost you, if you don't like the page, then don't go to it! -Rawbacon 01:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Following up to my recommendation above, in case the article is redirected, I would recommend a delete first and then redirect. I would like to get the listing of student romances out of the edit history. That's the aspect of the page as to which I would like to discourage the students from posting on it and having their fun, because it could affect people who don't even go to the page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Administrators can remove specific edits from the article history for BLP violations and keep the authorship history of the rest of the article intact in case it becomes notable enough to re-expand. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
      • That's true. At least the edits that invade students' privacy should be removed from the edit history if a merge or redirect is the outcome of this AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to the school district. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Smerge(selectively merge) to an article about the schol district. Most of the unreferenced information is not of encyclopedic interest. Edison (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, no school district to merge to, and isn't notable. Oppose merge. Wizardman 14:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect without merging. There is nothing to merge for two reasons. First, lack of sourcing. Second, merging anything would create an undue weight problem in the target. GRBerry 17:19, 7 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 - boldly closing early per the snowball clause - Peripitus (Talk) 10:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vernon Heywood

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

Not Particularly Notable WP:BIO Llamabr (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Chair Emertius of Botany at Reading, leading figure in modern botanical taxonomy, 800 Google Books results, over four thousand Google Scholar results, one paper cited 443 times using their rudimentary citation system. Passes WP:PROF with flying colors. --Dhartung | Talk 03:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep on the basis of what Dhartung said. He really is notable. --Eastmain (talk) 04:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I added an award that he won recently, filling out another entry of WP:PROF in case we needed more. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dhartung's and David Eppstein's comments. Passes WP:PROF by well over a mile. Nsk92 (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Well referenced, clearly notable. No issues here. Pedro :  Chat  09:58, 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. Appears to be NN. Yet again, IMDB cannot be used as a RS. Black Kite 07:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jesse Kozel

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

This is another article (which seems autobiographical) with only YouTube and MySpace as a resource. Including the comment in the edit summary for creation, this meets WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, and WP:MUSIC. Does not seem to be notable. Also a contested PROD. Soxred93 (u t) 02:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

HIS IMDb.com page is listed there as well as his Official MySpace page.

Here is the LINK TO HIS OFFICIAL WEBSITE TOO! JESSE KOZEL There is no reason to delete him. He has MANY roles this year coming out and he is an actor people are TALKING ABOUT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by USpanish (talk • contribs) 03:49, 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. Essentially a G4, as the content is functionally identical to the previously deleted content, and no new claims of notability are made. Black Kite 07:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jetman (Facebook application)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Jetman (Facebook application) Articles for deletion/Jetman (facebook) Articles for deletion/Jetman (video game)
Jetman (Facebook application) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable Facebook application. Please see the other two discussions for details.

  • Weak Delete as a non-notable game. With the proliferation of facebook apps, it's the rare one that's actually going to be both notable and verifiable by reliable sources. While I do see one source, it's a campus correspondent column. I'm not really convinced that this alone establishes notability (or does so in combination with popularity), but I'm moving down to a weak delete. --Bfigura (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Bfigura (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Two million users isn't nothing, though - and there's that Gainesville Sun article about it and its status as a craze. What're your opinions on that, folks? Also - what other two discussions? --Kizor 11:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • On an entirely separate matter, It's dismaying that the editor who nominated this article - which is not something that should be done lightly - didn't bother to use copypaste. But that's manners, not relevant to the article. --Kizor 11:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep it has the numbers and a source on its side. User:Krator (t c) 14:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I see some RS coverage but if it's the same, should it be G4? TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 14:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - "this number is big" is not a rationale for notability. Game is clearly non-notable, and regardless of popularity cannot sustain its own article. - Chardish (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - popularity can help establish notability. but if nobody has written an article about it, it doesn't pass the basic notability test. someone's gonna have to find some reliable, reputable third party sources that talk about this game. otherwise, the current references don't cut it and the game should be deleted. Randomran (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Esteffect (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, or merge to a list of Facebook applications or something. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete again and salt if needs be. Popularity is not notability, the single source presented contains enough detail to allow Jetman to be mentioned briefly in a facebook-related article, like a sentence or two, but multiple reviews are needed for reception in a standalone article. The only other potential source I can find is this, from what seems to be a marketing company see their 'about us' page. Someoneanother 10:28, 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 based on sourcing provided in this discussion Gnangarra 14:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Artemis Eternal

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

Fails WP:NFF and does not give any evidence with regards to notability. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a reference if that helps. Artemis Eternal --Alreajk (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Not in itself, unfortunately. I'm not contesting its existence, but it's notability. You might want to refer to WP:NOTFILM to see what we generally require to assert notability. You should also be aware that future films aren't notable enough to warrant independent articles unless they have already started filming (and have a reliable source to prove it). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
That's not strictly true. There are cases in which the preproduction of a film is notable enough to have significant coverage in reliable sources -- for example, Rapunzel. That appears to be the case here as well; Stover's unique funding ideas seem to have garnered attention. Powers T 14:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, just remembered that Rapunzel is in full production and has been for years, but I think my point stands. Powers T 14:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete even though I've done a bit of clean up on this article, I can't find sources to prove that production is underway nor any to prove notability. At least it will die prettier. - Dravecky (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I see. Alright delete it then. I'll copy it to my user namespace and create the article when it receives more attention and begins filming. Thanks for your help and input. --Alreajk (talk) 22:26, 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 00:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interfusigrating

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

Per Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Articles_on_neologisms Oore (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong delete per WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP. Plus, the only Ghits are for Neil Charlet (presumably the article creator) and his website. nneonneo talk 01:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. This ugly neologism was made up this month. Enough said. AnturiaethwrTalk 02:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Per the creator's username, it was made up by the person who created the article, therefore WP:MADEUP. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEO.--Berig (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete dogcrap. JuJube (talk) 08:19, 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. Lara❤Love 04:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Joints & New Entries from 106 & Park

New Joints & New Entries from 106 & Park (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of featured music videos on BET's 106 & Park show. The show itself is not based on any kind of sales or airplay data; this seems to go against WP:NOT#IINFO and just basically is not encyclopedic. Additionally, a similar article listing 106 & Park videos was deleted per AfD several months ago. All of this was in the main 106 & Park article but was removed, only to have an editor copy it and move it to this new page. There is no way to source any of this prior to 2007 (the show started well before then), and as it is a daily show, these tables and the article itself has nowhere to go but huge. Conversation on the main 106 & Park talk page was questioning the inclusion of this info there before I removed it and everything here is a direct copy/paste of the source that is listed at the bottom of the article. - eo (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Just a list of new videos played on the show. Those who add entries to this article should find better ways and topics to contribute to the encyclopedia (or do more for the 106 & Park article itself) than a list of videos that violates WP:NOT#INFO. Nate • (chatter) 04:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It is a list of information better placed on another website, with perhaps a link from the main page. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Regardless of the verifiability of the information in this list, it is in no way notable. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 21:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The only source is a blog which isn't reliable, so this is fundamentally unverifiable. I also agree this doesn't appear to be notable. Gwernol 22:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:49, 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 with September 11, 2001 attack memorials and services. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks

By far the shortest, least informative and least useful of the 9/11-related articles that are listed on the template on all the pages. Although it was a major event I don't find usefulness on articles about anniversaries of certain events. Also, red links and citations for lack of sourcing are abound. --Nicholas Weiner (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak delete, not because this isn't notable or verifiable; it certainly is. However, this kind of thing is a better candidate for the WikiNews project than here. Celarnor Talk to me 01:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete -- I genuinely hope the article's creator will add verifiable sources and links. Otherwise, it doesn't pass the notability requirements. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to September 11, 2001 attack memorials and services, which already points to this article. Not overlong already, and this information is short, so could easily be its own section. We only need one article. --Dhartung | Talk 03:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete (very weak) I'd say weak keep if I thought this would ever be sourced, but a look at the history reveals that the article was created two days before 9/11/2002, in a wikinews-style upcoming coverage thing, then modified after the fact. It doesn't seem likely that any sources will be added now. If anybody can do so, I'd happily change my vote. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge per User:Dhartung Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with the attack memorials article. There's no need to have individual articles like this. 23skidoo (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. I think this is a notable subject worth having information on - I remember there was plenty ofg coverage of the anniversary at the time - but it doesn't obviously need its own article. Terraxos (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete/Strong Merge per Terraxos. This is a topic that put forth some effort can get alot of information on it. Noah¢s (Talk) 20:46, 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. Just a local gaming group, the "reliable source" article makes it quite clear how local. The "700+" Google hits for the convention come down to just about 30 relevant hits - mostly forums and blogs - when English results only are requested (the phrase is common, and irrelevant, in Italian). Black Kite 07:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gaming Association of Southwestern Pennsylvania

Gaming Association of Southwestern Pennsylvania (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization (120 members), with just one local newspaper article. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Seems like a member created this without knowing the notability guidelines. Tavix (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable and sourced. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Group runs large gaming convention with 8+ year history, subject covered in major newspaper [54], and with 700-ish secondary sources available to comb through (here [55]) a motivated editor can easily source this properly. - Dravecky (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The number of members is not directly relevant to notability. Reliable sources establishing notability are. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, coverage in the nearest newspaper isn't very convincing. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, local gaming club, nothing to suggest broader notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. One newspaper article isn't enough to meet WP:N. Everything in Dravecky's google search looks either trivial or not independent. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dravecky. The group organizes GASPcon, which appears a notable gaming convention, at least locally. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Percy Snoodle. Stifle (talk) 21:40, 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. Lara❤Love 04:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Love motive

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

A 100% WP:OR literary concept. JuJube (talk) 00:50, 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. The current contents are badly written and unsourced; they should not be merged in this state as this would degrade the quality of the target article. Sandstein (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tanegashima knife

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

Article fails to assert notability, no sources to justify text and google search for "Tanegashima knife" shows two hits, both wikipedia, and "Tanegashima knives" shows 17, none of which are evidence of coverage in secondary sources or any coverage besides sales sites. WLU (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable type of knife; although the knife does exist (knife -Wikipedia&btnG=Search see Google), it isn't notable enough to justify an article. — Wenli (reply here) 02:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge. This article reads as though it was written by a non-native speaker, or perhaps multiple. At any rate, I think that this might warrant some mention on the Tanegashima page, if any sort of corroborating evidence can be found. Otherwise I'd gladly change my recommendation to Delete. Sean ODuibher (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge relevant info to the article on the island (Tanegashima), and leave a redirect. Google in Japanese returns a few hundred pages for "種子島包丁", which is the direct translation of Tanegashima knife. There are various mentions of Portuguese traders landing there in 1543, and the introduction of the knife to the area, similar to what is in the article now, which is suitable for the city article. [56] is one such source; but it is just a company selling knives. Nevertheless, the introduction of knives to Japan is probably noteworthy and can be sourced with a good library. Neier (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge per Neier, I suppose; the best independent source I could find on short notice is this Japan Travel Bureau page [57] recommending the Ikenami Cutlery Works (池浪刃物製作所) as a sightseeing destination; their name keeps popping up when I search about Tanegashima knives. The page mentions that since a long time ago, iron sand from the coast of Tanegashima has been used to make knives and other metal tools, and says that Tanegashima knives are popular in the culinary world and as wedding presents. cab (talk) 04:58, 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 speedy delete, copyvio. - Bobet 02:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Meggan anderson

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

Non-notable actress, a quick IMDB search does bring up a few screen credits, but most of them are small NN one-shot appearances, none of which satisfy WP:BIO. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep AfD at the tender age of five minutes. Her credits are bit parts, but she also has some news hits from her PETA-related activities. I think she's borderline notable, but with more time, something more substantial could be added. It would need moved to Meggan Anderson, though. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if this seemed like a quick nom, but everything I could find made me think she wasn't a WP:BIO candidate. I did do a gnews/ google search beforehand, most of what I found was (with maybe one exception) trivial, mostly passing references or press releases from PETA. If you can find some other sources, I'm willing to withdraw. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 04:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Somehow I missed the fact that those g-news hits were all PETA press releases. I'll stick with giving it a little time, though it may not make a difference in this case. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bit parts only with names like "redheaded girl"? No. Being a PETA spokesperson is also not notable, being called by PETA "too hot for whatever" is not an independent evaluation. Also, Wikipedia:Geogre's Law .... --Dhartung | Talk 08:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Although I agree that 5 mins is a bit quick for AfD this may easily have been speedied under "db-bio". a non-notable actress. There is also the possible copyvio here[58] Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Speedy delete G12. Wouldn't have thought I'd go from speedy keep to speedy delete in an AfD, but that's definitely a copyvio, and those have to go right away. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
      • So tagged. The article creator posted on the talk of this AfD and seemed to indicate that they were NOT Ms. Anderson, who IMDB credits their page to. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep What this article is missing is a Filmography. Then it will be good enough. Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Subject does not even come close to passing WP:BIO. A lot of ghits though, too bad all of them appear to be non-notable sources. Trusilver 01:43, 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. Lara❤Love 04:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boy Howdy (logo)

Boy Howdy (logo) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject is not notable. Article has no sources and is mostly original research. The article is about a logo for Creem, which contains the same image and already contains similar information. Ward3001 (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination for failing to show notability. (Hey, doggies! By gosh, by golly!). Edison (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is marginal notability because it's a Crumb design/character, and apparently one J. Lennon once wore a Boy Howdy t-shirt, but it's already covered in the not-overlong Creem article. I also don't see this as a search term that would usually be for the logo and not the band or just the phrase. Obvsiouly a hatnote on the band page, though. --Dhartung | Talk 03:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As per earlier comments. Bye-bye, Howdy! Ecoleetage (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:N.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 01:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cream, as the subject is non notable but the advertiser is not. Editorofthewikireview my edits here! 23:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That's Creem. Ward3001 (talk) 00:19, 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 delete. Discounting some poorly argued opinions, of which three were for "merge" and two for "delete" (Dorftrottel, lack of notability is not a criterium for speedy deletion), contributors have overwhelmingly determined that this thinly sourced detail of an (albeit very notable) fictional universe should not have an article of its own. They have also by a ratio of roughly two to one determined that the content should not even be merged. That's probably close enough to allow for a brief mention (to the effect of a few sentences or a paragraph) of this subject in an appropriate article. Sandstein (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Force lightning

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

Non-notable plot gimmick/special effect. Single citation is to unreliable source. Original research ("a single powerful blast may be sufficient to kill a person instantly") and plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:FICT and WP:N. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete article, create redirect to Force (Star Wars). Star Cruft, Cruft Wars, Attack of the Cruft, take your pick. I know the chances that this article will actually be deleted are slim at best, considering the amount of Star Wars fans around these parts. This is a shame, as this article serves only to make Wikipedia look like an amateurish fanguide. Nothing is notable about this outside the Star Wars world. The absolute best we could hope for from this article would be List of appearances of Force lightning in popular culture, and that's a warning sign. Throw 'er on a Star Wars-themed Wiki, but far too in-universe for this particular Wiki, especially considering the more iconic Force-related quote also redirects to aforementioned article. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge Merge any useful information into Force (Star Wars), Darth Vader or their respective articles where they belong. This fails WP:FICT and WP:N. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Note that "delete and merge" is not legal under the GFDL, as attribution must be maintained. These should be interpreted as merge and redirect. Bryan Derksen (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak merge While it's true that the information would be primarily useful only o Star Wars fans, that isn't a valid deletion argument. Such arguments are CRUFTCRUFT and IDONTKNOWIT. A better concern with the article is that it doesn't have a lot of real-world relevance and can't really be written in an out-of-universe style. As it stands now, Wookiepedia already has a much better article than ours about the subject, so they wouldn't benefit from a merge of this material. Information should be merged into an article on the force in a section about the uses thereof if real-world relevance can't be found (and I can't see any in relevant sources). Celarnor Talk to me 01:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: It would seem that Force power is the place for this. Celarnor Talk to me 01:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mmmm, crufty. Badly written, poorly sourced, and never going to be more than that. Merge anything reliable into Force power for now, deal with that cruft in the future. WLU (talk) 10:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to an article on force powers or some such. Various places for "real world" electrokinesis may exist as well. Doesn't need a standalone article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into other Star Wars characters Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Force power. WP:fancruft isn't a good reason for deletion, but lack of notability is and I can't find any secondary sources on this subject, only passing pop culture references. On the other hand, I think there are independant sources for Jedi powers in general (e.g. some of these links) with discussion such as the impact of those fictional concepts on modern culture so that article is redeemable, even if it's currently totally unsourced in terms of secondary references...which it is. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wookieepedia and delete, per WLU. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge depending on what gives the best results - this is something that we need to cover with the Force, which we must cover with Star Wars. --Kizor 23:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per First pillar, i.e. consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Star Wars. Verifiable and reognizable topic that appears in notable films and video games. "Cruft" is not a valid reason for deletion per WP:ITSCRUFT, Wikipedia:Cruftcruft, DGG, and Verdatum. And the article has improved from the nominated version versus the current version. Moreover, we cannot "delete and merge" per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Finally, there is a clear interest in the topic among our readers and editors. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment You haven't addressed that there is no evidence of the WP:notability of this subject. If it's not notable, why should it have its own article? The subject doesn't need to be described by a long page of information clearly from primary sources (mostly computer game manuals), all the reliable sources about "Force lightning" can be covered in a paragraph or two in a more general article on the Force. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I have seen no indication that it is not notable. It appears in some of the most successful films of all times and also in video and other types of games and even if as you suggest it should be covered in an article on the Force, then we would still merge and redirect without deletion. I see zero benefit to the project in outright deletion and as DGG notes below when an article has potential, we do not delete, we redirect with the allowance for the existing article to be improved when additional sources are added. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The burden of proof does not fall on those asserting non-notability; the burden of proof is on those claiming notability -- and there is no evidence of "Force lightning"'s notability. This effect/gimmick does not inherit notability from the films or games in which it appears. Given the lack of sources and in-universe treatment, I see no utility in retaining this article, and simply merging it into Force powers would shift one pile of unsubstantiated dreck into another, simply exacerbating the project's problem with unsubstantiated in-universe plot summary and OR. --EEMIV (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Appearances in multiple media, even toys, and given the hits this article gets (thousands of readers and clear evidence of editors working on the artucle) suggest notability. As a sub or break off article, the effect/gimmick inherits notability from the films and games in which it appears and is covered by a mix of sources, both primary and secondary and just needs clean up, not deletion. I see no gain for our project in not retaining this article. As a community of editors, the burden is on ALL of us to do what we can to improve articles and not to just order others to do so, especially on a paperless encyclopedia without a deadline. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment One way that we can improve the encyclopedia is to avoid subjects that lend themselves primarily to unreferencable waffle. I've looked for independant sources on "force lightning" and failed to find them. Unless some can be found, it doesn't warrant an article to itself because the independantly referencable discussion of the subject is so small that it can easily fit within another article. I've never seen a guideline that suggests "sub articles" should be exempted from WP:N, I don't think that's the case. Note that the opinion of many here is to merge/redirect. Clearly actual deletion would be counterproductive, but that's just a technicality.Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Unless if we can say we have exhausted all publications, i.e. sci fi, toy, and Star Wars magazines, then I don't think we can say definitively that a non-hoax topic such as this one cannot be better referenced. If there is any consensus to merge and redirect then we do not need a deletion discussion to do those. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Given the absence of reliable sources and the non-encyclopedic tone of this article, I disagree that deletion is "clearly" "counterproductive." Unreferenced plot summary and trivia like this dilute the pool of actually well-done Battletartrekwars-related articles. --EEMIV (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
So, you're suggesting that this special effect's incorporation as an action figure *accessory* suggests notability? "clear evidence of editors working on the artucle" is a vague and, like this article, unsubstantiated rationale to keep it. I have no idea -- and doubt you do, either -- how to back up this claim of "thousands of readers." All ~25 articles that link to this "article" use the term/idea in the context of plot summary, without any discussion or notion of real-world notability. And as for the idea that this thing should remain until all potential sources have been examined -- well, you simply have it backwards; sources should be on hand and incorporated into an article as it's developed. Editors who want to add/restore/retain material have the burden of meeting Wikipedia's WP:V and WP:N standards -- that clearly hasn't been the case in this thing's almost-three-year history. Perhaps you should userfy this article until citations to reliable sources establishing notability, verifying claims and providing an out-of-universe perspective come up. --EEMIV (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does indeed suggest notability as its something that is specifically mentioned as a major feature of that action figure. Deletion rationales for the article tend to be "I don't like it" in nature. I can back up the claim of thousands of readers with the fact that I link to a page above that demonstrates in one month alone the page received thousands of hits. Articles develop over time. Wikipedia is in effect a constant work in progress. Therefore, the article is still being developed and should remain in mainspace where any editor can come and continue to improve it. There's no deadline. Instead of userfying it, the article has a greater likelihood of improvement if it remains in mainspace. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment I'm not saying that no references could ever be found. But what are the odds of finding significant reliable coverage in an independant source? Slight to none, reflecting its lack of notability. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Star_Wars says that "Only a few characters, items, or spaceships deserve their own entry" and that trivial information is "frowned upon". This article is not on a subject of primary importance to Star Wars, and can only ever contain trivia because force lightning has never been a subject of interest in its own right outside of fan sites. The deletion discussion here can establish a consensus on whether the subject warrants an article to itself, which can then be referred to when implementing the redirection.Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Considering the popularity of Star Wars, I think the odds are very good that given time and adequate searching on not just online, but published sources significant reliable sources could be found. It is a important force power and given that Star Wars just keeps making games and figures these sorts of aspects will only increase in notability and coverage. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
And, as usual, nothing speaks against recreating the article iff and only when reliable sources verifying notability have been found. Such sources should be included right on article creation. Please stop speculating; and please start acknowledging valid arguments. Dorftrottel (harass) 09:57, May 2, 2008
While my argument is to keep, I will acknowledge that there are valid arguments presented for merging and redirecting without deleting; however, there are no valid arguments for outright deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 13:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there are. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 13:27, May 2, 2008
Not really. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 13:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Please reply to this post. Dorftrottel (warn) 13:31, May 2, 2008
  • Speedy delete, fails all notability prerequisites. Dorftrottel (bait) 00:08, May 1, 2008
  • Weak delete possibly could be an article, but this does seem to consist of essentially OR. Could be recreated with some better sources if they are available. I prefer not to be cited as if my general opinions were WP policy. It's flattering, but not really truthful. DGG (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If an article has potential then we would be best off not outright deleting it, but in a worst case scenario would redirect it as others suggest, although I still personally believe that the article should be kept. Anyway, I am not citing you as if you were policy, but only as indicative of a specific respected user beyond the two shortcuts I provide that the whole "cruft" as an argument from editors really does not add anything to these discussions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • But is there potential here? WP:PLOT is fairly clear that plot information for its own sake is not wanted. Taemyr (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Force (Star Wars) or Force power - not sufficiently notable for it's own article - but are we denying it's existence? Seems like it would be better placed padding out the main article. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect without merging This article is purely plot synopsis. There is nothing here to merge since there is more than enough plot in the articles that it have been suggested for the merge. Taemyr (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC) ammending my vote. Redirects are after all cheap. Taemyr (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The article is not only plot synopsis. When there is a valid redirect location (although I still think the article should be kept) and the article in question is not a hoax, libel, or copy vio, we redirect, rather than delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't know where you get this idea that only hoaxes, libel and copyvios get deleted. Per policy, "content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not verifiable in a reliable source" is also up for deletion. This topic I believe falls under the former, and there is a dearth of the reliable sources for an appropriate out-of-universe perspective per the latter. --EEMIV (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The article has content verfiable in reliable sources and those should not be deleted. If I was able to find some references relatively rapidly, there's no reason to think that given more time, we couldn't find even more references. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I think Dooku used this in Attack of the clones and Palpatine used this in Empire strikes back is plot information. So is the fact that this is a power availiable in games set in the Star wars setting. Do you have any content about the impact of the star wars power that takes place outside the setting?Taemyr (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
            • The appearance in so many aspects of a notable franchise lends some degree of notability. We know aspects of Star Wars are covered in publications that do not necessarily show up on web searches. Thus, I think it reasonable that over time we have a realistic potential to come across an article in some magazine that will indeed allow us to expand on the out of universe context. Plus, considering that there's even a game called The Force Unleashed coming out, the notability of and information on force powers are likely to increase. When that game is released, reviews will likely comment on the use of and creation of certain powers as they typically do. I'm not opposed to a temporary merge and redirect without deletion that allows for the realistic possibility of what we currently have being improved as additional sources and material is found and can be added, but given that we have a redirect location and we know it's not a hoax and due to the widespread coverage of Star Wars on the net and in publications not readily found on the net, I just cannot see any benefit for outright deleting or deleting and redirecting. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Notability requires objective evidence. Plus wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Our treshold for redirection is way lower than what it is for articles, so I can see no against turning this page into a redirect rather than deletion. Taemyr (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Appearances in notable games, toys, and films demonstrates objective notability. I am not opposed to redirects without deletion so long as there is no prejudice to unredirect when additional sources are found. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:N, WP:FICT, and WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 19:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • There's no evidence that it fails any of those. Please note WP:VAGUEWAVE. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • This comment indicates that I have read your response to my !vote, but do not feel there is a reason to reply since conversations with you do not lead anywhere. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 19:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Then you do not understand how AfDs work as they are discussions, not votes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Given the absence of a real-world treatment of this article and assertion of notability, the burden of proof for citing any sort of evidence is yours and fellow kepper-!voters. Also -- were you trying to be ironic with your brief "Note WP:VAGUEWAVE" comment? --EEMIV (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
            • AfD is not a vote. The VAGUE shortcut indicates the weak argument of just listing a bunch of shortcuts without any reasoning. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
              • No kidding, it's not a vote -- I'd have thought you'd picked up by now that the ! symbol (which means "not" in programming and logic contexts) in front of "vote" is AfD shorthand for "I know it's not a vote, but when it comes down to what I want, here's my say." --EEMIV (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Actually, I did not know that. Thank you for explaining it as I was starting to wonder what the deal was with the symbol before the "vote" word. We all learn something new every day, no? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or weak trim&merge into Force power#Dark. Way to minor/nonnotable for its own article, the rest is focused on plot and OR. – sgeureka t•c 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I think evidence suggests that we can expand the out of universe material and considering upcoming games like The Force Unleashed, the notability and significance of force powers is only increasing. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - the page has been rather ruthlessly edited; it's still problematic, but this is what is left after the last round of trimming. Easily a section in force power, and in that page the sections are quite long, allowing a longer, less choppy rendering of the subject. Including mentions like action figures, and every single place it appears in any medium, makes for a rather desperate sounding page. I remain convinced that the page can be quite productively merged. As a completely humorous aside, it really looked like palpatine's action figure was holding a handful of blue snot, tee hee. WLU (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge as per sgeureka. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per the various arguments above. Not-notable, WP:NOT, etc.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Not notable. We already have an article on The Force (Star Wars). KleenupKrew (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • keep per Le Grand Roi des Citrouille. Also note that this is | mentioned or discussed in many news stories. There should be enough material in those news stories to source the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note that notability requires more than passing mention. So pointing us at a google search page is not helpfull. For example the first seems to merely be giving a short description of the power as part of a game. Also note that a wikipedia article should describe real world impact, so we need to be able to cover force lightening independently from an out of universe perspective. Do you have any sources covering Force lightening outside of the star wars universe?Taemyr (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree that we generally require more than passing mention. That is, however to avoid OR. I disagree strongly with the notion that solely in-universe is a problem. We don't like in-universe descriptions when they are based off of the original material itself rather than secondary sources. That's because it makes OR likely. We can however use secondary sources which discuss the in-universe element. Furthermore, the games are a generalization of the original movie set and thus their description makes it less in-universe anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Specific parts of the game is still in-universe. In universe is in itself a problem because articles on fiction should be written with real world inpact in mind. The relevant policy is WP:NOT, and this point is covered at WP:PLOT. This is further explained in the relevant manual of style, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Real-world_perspective, which includes the argument against in-universe perspective for articles. Taemyr (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
          • WP:N overrides PLOT and MOS. The reason we have those is because of N and RS. In general, if all we can talk about is plot then we will likely be engaging in original research which isn't ok. That's not an issue here since we have many sources that give descriptions and summaries. Applying common sense is good. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
            • I don't think WP:N overrides MOS, they largely talk about different things. I know there is no consensus that the guideline WP:N overrides the policy WP:PLOT.Taemyr (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Force power#Dark per Celarnor. GlassCobra 03:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per improvement. I see good sources added and notability can be verified. This is encyclopedic information, not fancruft. Second choice would be to merge to Force power#Dark. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment What do the Andy Mangels and Star Wars: The Power of Myth sources actually say about force lightning? In what way is the coverage not trivial (not just a listing or passing mention when discussing a character) and therefore evidence of notability? They seem to be the only sources currently that may demonstrate notability, so please describe how they do. Ryan Paddy (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - for anyone thinking of revisiting their !vote, the page indeed has much changed mainly through the deletion of original research. It is now a total of perhaps six sentences, and could easily be merged into force powers; my preferrd option. WLU (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
'Comment Two references have also been added. If they demonstrate notability then it should have an article. Searching snippets on Google Books they just look like pasing mentions, which wouldn't demonstrate notability: here and here. There are only two passing mentions in the second source. In the first source there are three passing mentions, but there may be other sections in the book that have deeper coverage. Anyone have the book to confirm? I'm still of the merge and redirect opinion unless such notability is shown. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - "Keep per improvement" What a joke, there is a less than a paragraph remaining of the article, that alone should clue you in to the lack of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Hi, I assume my vote was addressed in your comment, thus I may clarify. By improvement, I meant the addition of three more sources and the cleanup of unnecessary details. It is true that the page was heavily trimmed, but AfDs judge the topic; the length of an article doesn't always matter (even when it does, that would be a cause for merge, not deletion :)). I believe the fact that sources were found in a relatively short time - a few days of this AfD clue us in about the subject's notability and the potential improvement in the future. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment The sources appear to be exactly what I would expect: Star Wars paraphenalia with passing mentions of force lightning. If they only include passing mentions, they absolutely don't demonstrate notability. And if the publisher also does extended universe books, they're not independant either. What I doubt you'll find is independant and substantial coverage of force lightning in a reliable source. And that is the criteria for notability. Come up with a news article on the subject, or an academic paper, or a chapter in a book, or a magazine article, or whatever. Otherwise, no evidence of notability has been demonstrated. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to Force power per above. Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 19:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination, this is precisely why we have outlets such as Wookiepedia for this sort of stuff. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • We also have outlets like Britannica for articles on Napoleon, for example, but just because something can exist elsewhere is no reason why it should not also exist on Wikipedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, but this in chock-full of original research and in my opinion fails our notability standards for fictional topics as well. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:13, 6 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. Wizardman 15:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Darren Sukenik

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

No notability out of a sales report. No sources. Personal web-site claims that he is constantly "ranked #1 broker Downtown" but there are few verifiable sources that back this. seicer | talk | contribs 00:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Keeps his name in the papers by being a quotable go-to guy for journalists on deadline, apparently (not that there's anything wrong with that). But hardly anything more than that in the way of sources. Being EVP of sales, even for a notable firm (which this isn't proven to be), isn't notability. --Dhartung | Talk 03:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO. Being quoted occasionally in the press doesn't confer notability. (We'd need multiple sources with non-trivial coverage for that, and I don't see it). Bfigura (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. I found numerous articles in which he comments on real estate, one that mentions him among real estate agents who also buy and sell property (trivial coverage), but no articles that are solely or primary about him as a person. The closest I can find is this article about a non-profit group he's involved with, but it isn't directly about him.Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • delete No secondary reliable sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 04:55, 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 merge all to Edea (musical group). Will do it now. Neıl ☎ 11:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Samuli Kosminen

Samuli Kosminen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
Tommy Mansikka-Aho (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Marika Krook (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable musician. I am nominating for deletion because of the following line in WP:MUSIC: "Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band." Tavix (talk) 00:08, 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 - WP:SNOW applies. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National super hero day

National super hero day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable corporate holiday. No references. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Geez, now I wish I'd said "stronger-than-a-locomotive delete" or something like that. ("Speedier-than-a-speeding-bullet delete" doesn't apply here, I think.) AnturiaethwrTalk 04:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (as all the clever pirate metaphors have been taken). A non-notable holiday, and wikipedia isn't for things that were just madeup. Bfigura (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • To the Delete-cave, Batman! (I tried...) Lack of reliable sources indicates lack of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 11:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Up, up, and away with this article! That is to say, Delete as even though the more-logical "National Superhero Day" does quite a bit better in the Google search [59] department, there are still no Google News hits so while it's not a hoax it doesn't quite reach the threshold of of notability. - Dravecky (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There is a claim to notability in the article: This holiday has been recognized by Dartmouth College students and was even celebrated one night at the Kappa Kappa Kappa fraternity at 1 Webster Avenue. That does it for me - Delete Emeraude (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • To infinity and beyond aka a sad delete. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 14:36, 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.