Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 5

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 21:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Graeme Barrie

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

Violation of WP:COI and WP:AUTO. A jack of many trades who has failed to achieve notability in any one of them. He says he is a wedding DJ, but he has not achieved notability in that field. He says he is a "safety consultant," whatever that is, but he has not achieved notability in that field. He says he is a diving instructor, but he has not achieved notability in that field. He says that he has done a lot of work in motorsports, but he has not achieved notability in that field. He says he is a yachtsman, but he has not achieved notability in that field. We may have to create a new guideline for cases like these: "WP:Walter Mitty". Qworty (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable autobiography. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Many claims. No proof. One's own sites aren't acceptable. DarkAudit (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:AUTO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin close) —BradV 00:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kong (dog toy)

Kong (dog toy) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless a lot of other info can be added. For example...what is it made of? Who makes it? Who designed it? Does it have any special sponsors? Nearly useless as it is. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It was created 7 minutes ago. —BradV 21:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• True, but I'm a firm believer that a stub should have a lot more basic information than this does. I'm all for a keep vote if notability can be established. That's up to the original user to start off with a good stub based on some good research. I get the impression that this is a good faith effort based on the fact that this individual just purchased one of these toys and decided to write an article. Done that sort of thing myself, in fact. BUT...I added the requisite links, references and history. In short, this needs some due diligence. Off the soapbox I go.  :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The Kong is a fairly popular dog toy. This article seems like it would be useful, and the toy is also discussed in plenty of books, one of which calls it "possibly the best known dog toy in the world. I'll try adding some refs and stuff sometime later this weekend (although others are welcome to help out). Zagalejo^^^ 22:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per Zagalejo's sources, seems to be notable enough. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand per Zagalejo. Luksuh 23:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing nomination per the sources provided. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nomination withdrawn. Whpq (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Al Mitchell

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

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:N. Article proclaims he played for the Buffalo Bills in 1924. The Buffalo Bills team didn't exist until 1960. He played for the multinamed 1920-1929 NFL franchise when they were called The Bisons. for - according to the source given in the article - a grand total of six games. Yeah, that's totally NN Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Doc Strange's arguments. If he played six times in the NFL then he is notable six times over according to the criteria for athletes in WP:BIO. Factual errors are fixed by editing, not by deleting. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, agreed, I missed this. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As did I, good work Phil Bridger. Had no clue that even playing one game in NFL made even an obscure player notable. The more you know. My vote's now Keep. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing nomination per the above argument. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:14, 6 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. Wikipedia is not a grammar textbook. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Present tense conjugations of ser

Present tense conjugations of ser (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: Not encyclopedic article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a grammar textbook. JohnCD (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Suprimir Wikipedia no es un diccionario de español. (Delete Wikipedia is not a Spanish dictionary.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Luksuh 22:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a grammar textbook -- it is a linguistics encyclopedia, which is not the same thing. Besides, if you're going to conjugate, be exhaustively encyclopedic about it: all the tenses in both indicative and subjunctive modes. Sheesh. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Quasirandom. JuJube (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• I delete, you delete, (s)he deletes, we delete, you delete, they delete per everybody. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Que sera, sera! Whatever will be, will be! Looks like this was a test run that really won't make it as an independent article. No need for me to add my delete opinion. I suggest mentioning this info in the article about irregular verbs (in English "to be" is the classic example, and this is the Spanish counterpart). Or place it in Spanish grammar for illustration between regular and irregular conjugates. Mandsford (talk) 15:34, 6 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. Actually, this could've been speedied per A7. A group of 4 high school sprinters? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No Limit Sprinters

No Limit Sprinters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Luksuh 21:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This has appropriate and verifiable sources and was worthy of notice as proven by several references to publication in the Kansas City Star. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmckay10 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Ugh. Unwikified, orphaned, and demonstrating no significant notability beyond local activity. Orphaned articles are usually orphaned for a reason, and if this is to be kept, it's in dire need of a major rewrite.Delete. B.Wind (talk) 05:35, 11 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, though anyone who wants to merge the content is welcome to do so, the content can be found in the deletion logs. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Life & Freaky Times

My Life & Freaky Times (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Singer seems to be semi notable but there doesn't seem to be anything notable about this album -- no reviews, no third party sources, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral for now. I don't know enough about music to properly dig for sources, so I'll wait for someone else skilled in that area to give it a try. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There is an All Music Guide review but otherwise I'm turning up next to nothing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Registers 3,390 ghits, so it is semi-notable. Luksuh 21:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• WP:GOOGLEHITS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Apart from the All Music Guide thing, I can't find anything that looks like reviews or coverage that would suggest notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with Luther Campbell, the artist who recorded the CD. It's independently released; so it is unlikely to stand up on its own, but Luther Campbell (a.k.a. Luke) most certainly meets WP:MUSIC. B.Wind (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with Luther Campbell. Non-notable, doesn't deserve to have an article. Reverend X (talk) 11:51, 13 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.  —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 21:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fpsbanana

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

Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Someone must've deleted the page in mid nom. The only edit is the tagging for AfD. :) DarkAudit (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G6 as housekeeping, since page got nuked just as AfD tag was placed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:24, 5 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.

[edit] UKWDA

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

contested prod: "Glorified webring instead of prof standards org--despite their claims of 9000+ members, and the text below saying member have to link to it, Alexa only finds 1100 incoming links. Ghits indicate membership shrinking"; fails WP:ORG - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Luksuh 21:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: fails to meet the WP:CORP criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The main failing of the article is the lack of coverage by independent sources. I didn't turn any with a Google search. If they've been written up in, say, the Guardian, then I'll reconsider. —C.Fred (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It's been mentioned, though not "written up" by the more common UK Web Design Association in the Guardian [8]. A weak case could be made under WP:CORP#Non-commercial organizations, based on a few mentions in secondary media which all seem to connote some authority to UKWDA: [9] and [10] – Zedla (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and move to UK Web Design Association. Appears notable enough to me. See [11] (page 16 - as mentioned by Zedla) [12] [13]. --Edcolins (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - the sources are all of the most tangential, mentioning this organization only in passing. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:17, 7 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 all per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). PeterSymonds | talk 20:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ontario Hockey Junior C League teams

(View AfD) I am nominating for deletion the articles linked from this infobox. Not one of them contains any assertion of notability beyond being a team which plays in the Junior C league of the Ontario Hockey Association. When I reviewed them, I found that not one of them cited a single non-trivial independent source. Speedy deletion was overturned by an admin in the Hockey project, which claims to WP:OWN these articles, and a member asserts that there is consensus that teams at this level are notable. Really? These are local youth teams, and the articles are sourced solely from the team websites. In fact, Wikipedia appears to be leading the world in documenting the history of these teams and their competitions. I think this belongs on a Wikia somewhere, I do not believe there is consensus that low-league youth teams are inherently notable or that self-soureced articles are acceptable anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment You have a strange way of doing things, Guy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sometimes, yes. Unorthodox is my middle name. Actually, no, my middle name is André after my famous forbear, but nearly :-) Guy (Help!) 21:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Feeder system for National Hockey League and has provided hundreds of alumnus to the pro-ranks worldwide. The assertion that this is youth athletics is false, players are up to the age of 21 years old. The "C" stands for the third tier of hockey, not of skill or notability, but of size of centre played in. If the nominator could get off his soapbox for a minute, he may realize that we have templates that are good for putting on articles that require more sources. DMighton (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Not youth hockey as the nominator seems to think. Youth hockey is below the junior level and is called Midget. All these articles can meet WP:N quite easily as they are in articles in various cities news papers. If they are not referenced strongly now they certainly can be cleaned up. Not a reason for deletion. THey should be tagged and improved. Smells very strongly of WP:POINT. I don't see where anyone in the project claimed they own them. I think someone just mentioned to you that you should discuss before speedying and deleting your own speedies. -Djsasso (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, bordering on speedy. While I always assume good faith, this does seem a little suspicious, especially since there haven't been any cite or notability tags placed on any of the articles that I looked at from the templates. That should always, always be done before nominating something for deletion due to lack of citations or notability concerns, speedy or otherwise. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• You want me to tag every single one with "no sources" because, what, the entire Hockey Wikiproject has forgotten about WP:RS and WP:N? Come on. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes. That's exactly what I advocate. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment At least the main one. And a lack of article cites isn't generally a reason for deletion, let alone mass deletion. It's the topic. Hobit (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • Comment: Regarding concerns on the talk page of the nominator, who seems to think everyone showed up to !vote based on liking the subject, I know nothing about hockey other than that it happens a lot in Canada and involves ice, sticks and a small rubber ball/cylinder/thing. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - per others. Speedy was wrongful, especially since they were tagged and deleted by the same admin. Grsz11 21:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Can someone link to the discussion where the speedy was overturned? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - per others. Speedy was improper and shows poor judgment and abuse of power by admin.Flibirigit (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep as per pretty much everyone above. Plenty of sources available in the form of newspapers. Definitely notable enough. paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)^{a door?} 22:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep Unilateral mass speedy deletion of these articles was wrong, wrong, wrong. Why was it too hard for the nominator to add "no sources" tags to the articles that require them, but not a problem to add AfD tags to all of them? Come on! --Canley (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• See WP:CSD#A7 - an assertion of notability is required. An unsourced article whose claim to notability is being a regional junior C league club has no assertion of notability. Where is the assertion of notability? Why are they all unsourced? Let's look at a randomly chosen example, Simcoe Storm. 124 unique Google hits, zero on Google News, zero on Google Scholar, zero in Google Books, zero on my Factiva subscription. And this is "obviously notable" in what way, please? Or how about Glanbrook Rangers: 114 unique Googles, including one scraped from test wiki, passing mention in some sports results pages. No sign of any non-trivial independent sources about the team. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Maybe keep the leagues. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep If these articles do a poor job of demonstrating notability, they should be tagged as such and the community given a chance to improve them before they're deleted - this is particularly so since the articles are within the mandate of a Wikiproject. I'm not a member of that project, but I can do a Google search too, and I don't have any question that notability can be demonstrated in most, if not all, of these cases.

In addition, I think there are some serious process problems here. I can't see any evidence in the history of the articles or the template that they were tagged for speedy deletion, which I assume means that the nominator performed the deletion without a tag. Lack of demonstrated notability is not a valid criteria for using WP:CSD#A7 - in fact, the description of WP:CSD#A7 is explicit that it is distinct from questions of notability. Importance and significance are the criteria for WP:CSD#A7. The length of time some of these teams and leagues have been around, the fact that they've graduated players to the pro ranks - these are considerations that contribute to importance and significance, so the speedy was inappropriate. As I've also said, I believe that the Afd nomination is not the best approach either but, if it's going to be put through the process, it should be done properly. The articles are not currently tagged as having been nominated for deletion, and there is also no evidence in the history of the articles that they've ever been tagged as such, which is a crucial component of the Afd process. The template was tagged as having been nominated, but that tag was removed by the nominator, so it too is currently lacking this critical component. How is the community expected to weigh in on the discussion without proper notice being provided? Mlaffs (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Hey, I'm nominating all articles that begin with the letter Q. Sorry, but most people would describe this as a lazy way to do a nomination for deletion. I'm willing to consider the nomination of the Clarence Schmalz Cup, made elsewhere on this page, but one has to do a little bit of work before tearing down someone else's house. Mandsford (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment None of the articles appear to have been marked for deletion. Resolute 15:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the nominator seems to have skipped that critical step of notifying those working on the articles outside of the hockey wikiproject (no one owns articles, not even wikiprojects) that these articles are up for deletion. An administrator should know better. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

And not to pile on after my earlier comments about the laziness of this particular nomination, but let's took at the original note from the nominator, which is the only guide we have to go on regarding what articles this nomination covers - "I am nominating for deletion the articles linked from this infobox.". That means that they're also asserting that the articles for the Ontario Hockey Association, Ontario Hockey Federation, and Hockey Canada don't demonstrate notability. Hockey Canada? Really? Obviously, I know that's not what's meant, but without proper tags ... Mlaffs (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I would call for a WP:SNOW on this at this point. Especially since he hasn't gone through and tagged the articles with the afd tag. -Djsasso (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Keep. All the articles are notable. If the nominator is actually nominating articles like Hockey Canada and the Ontario Hockey Federation, then they are oversteping their bounds as an Admin by a huge margin. Patken4 (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep due to improper process, fallacious reasoning. These are not "youth" teams. They are junior teams. Not just junior teams, they all fall under the governance of the OHA. This is the equivalent of deleting single-A minor league baseball teams as "youth" teams. More importantly, however, is the fact that this AfD is almost to the halfway point and these articles have not been tagged. Any deletion would be almost certainly overturned at DRV merely for that. --Smashville^BONK! 19:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. (non admin closure). Consensus formed around the sources; that they satisfy notability, and also referenced a detrimental edit to the article previously made by the nominator. WilliamH (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ibrahim Mousawi

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

biography of a non notable personage, weasel terms, propaganda for terrorist organization's member Elie plus (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Luksuh 21:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment — notability should be asserted better in the article; if this is not done, then it should be deleted. Being the spokesman for a notable organization may, as is, qualify for notability. If there's been some parliamentary debate about him specifically, then he might be notable. If Wikipedia had existed in 1928, would Joseph Goebbels been considered notable then? --Vuo (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The references in the article are more than enough to establish notability, and I can't see where this is propaganda - the article is remarkably neutral in tone for such a controversial subject. Also please note that the nominator has previously vandalised this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Moussawi`s visa has been questioned in both the House of Commons (David Cameron, Mr. Amess) and the House of Lords (Lord Strathclyde) (and in a Freedom of Information request, unsuccessfully). I will include that in the article. Additionally, I read that Mousawi was banned from France and the US too, but the sources did not seem reliable enough to me, it could be a confusion with the ban on Al Manar. Still, if Mousawi ever applied for a US visa, he probably would be denied, since he is a former senior editor of Al Manar, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entity on the Terrorist Exclusion List. I think Mousawi qualifies for notability (and notoriety). The accusation of propaganda and weasel words is really surprising to me, could somebody point that out? --Shengyi (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The sources are sufficient. (and, FWIW, a/c the Goebbels article, by '28 he'd become the leader of the Nazi party in Berlin. And elected to the Reichstag, which is automatic notability at WP.)DGG (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. John254 00:41, 10 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. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talal El Khoury

Talal El Khoury (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

autobiography written by a non notable personage, full on POV and it cites absolutely not one single reference. in short: not encyclopedia material Elie plus (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• I believe you mean full of POV, not full of NPOV. If it were full of NPOV it'd be neutral. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Luksuh 21:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. All this article says is that he got some diplomas, joined a professional association and had a couple of jobs with governments. Very worthy, I'm sure, but I can't see anything approaching notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no assertion of notability that I can see. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This article has been renominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talal El Khoury (2nd nomination) before this discussion has closed--Nsevs • Talk 21:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Seriously this looks like this guy put his own biography up here. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Awe (emotion)

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

A dictionary definition. Already exists at Wiktionary. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you to everyone for their input. The consensus is clearly that this is a legitimate encyclopedic topic and that there is an article waiting to be written here. Accordingly, I withdraw my nomination. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Definitely has expansion potential for psychology, neurology, etc, per sources such as this and this that deal with awe as an emotion and not merely as a word. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Article is notable but requires sourcing. Luksuh 21:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep - Could certainly be expanded, but it needs a lot of work. As it stands right now, it's not even a good stub article. --clpo13_(talk) 21:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef. Granted, it could potentially be turned into an encyclopedic treatment of the subject, but this article, as it stands now, has no encyclopedic content. No prejudice against someone recreating it later as encyclopedic content or to anyone who would care to add such material now to make the article suitable for inclusion.OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 21:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Phil Bridger makes a good point below. After further review of WP:DICDEF I am changing my opinion to neutral. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 17:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. This article needs be expanded. Wrath is an example of good article about emotions. Zero Kitsune (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:DICDEF gives a very clear explanation of the difference between a dictionary definition and an enclopedic stub. This is clearly the latter. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Can be expanded. ChessCreator (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spinnerball

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

This is a disguised advertisement. The link takes you to www.spinnerball.com, where Fun Outdoor Games LLC would like to sell you the Spinnerball^TM game for $49.95, or 12 for $299.40 etc. JohnCD (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No assertion of notability. No reliable, verifiable, or independent sources. DarkAudit (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Maybe not that blatant, but still pretty obvious that it's advertising. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Luksuh 21:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not quite a G11, but it's definitely spammy. Author is SPA whose only other contribution has been to put this article as a "see also" on Lawn game which suggests a posible COI though this is by no means proven. Oh, and did I mention that there are no independent sources, or suggestions of notability? No? Well, there aren't. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 22:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Some of this (including the "elusive" list) is copied from Ladder ball, which is probably in serious danger of being nominated next, unless it can clean up its own spammy nature. I'm afraid that the author of the Spinnerball article may have inadvertently betrayed that article as well. Mandsford (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes they have. DarkAudit (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Non-notable and advertisement. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete because it's a advertisement. (What's a scoring bar,anyway?) 99.230.152.143 (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. As entioned above, this is just basically a (partial) repeat of Ladder ball. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:57, 8 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, defaulting to keep. Aqwis (talk – contributions) 15:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enterprise: Temporal Cold War

Enterprise: Temporal Cold War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A yet-unreleased video game mod. References given point largely to blogs or the manufacturer's homepage. Removal seems to be controversial per the talk page. B. Wolterding (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Subject has been covered by Freeplay, a major gaming magazine. Other than that, though, there isn't much in the way of available sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 11:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with Half-Life 2. Enough independent coverage for a mention there, but not for its own article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The free play article along with the various interviews seem to be well over the bar for notability (multiple reliable references). The Freeplay article, while short, looks significant. Hobit (talk) 19:04, 11 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 However, JFire, the citations you've provided here need to be added to the article. I expect some cleanup, or I'll renominate myself...---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Sealth

I actually work there, its real we have mashed potoates —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.100.186 (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

nn summer camp, no reliable sources for the notabilty of this summer camp, Delete Secret 20:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No assertion of notability. No sources provided to show independent coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as a Camp Fire USA-affiliated camp, this one has some notability. There seems to be enough sources available to support a verifiable article. This writeup in The Young Woman's Journal of 1929 looks promising for historical coverage, and there's more recent news coverage: [14] [15] [16] [17]. Jfire (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep; well-known in the Seattle area as a local landmark; a search of a newspaper database turned up 100+ stories mentioning it. Notable for having been around so long, as well -- it must be one of the first Campfire camps. Article could use a bit of cleanup, though. -- phoebe / (talk) 07:50, 14 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 Redirected to Seven Party Alliance, editors are encouraged to merge as appropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eight Party Alliance

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

This page doesn't seem to have a purpose beyond attacking the parties involved, and in any case, the term Eight Party Alliance is very rarely used - the term Seven Party Alliance is used even when including the Maoists BovineBeast (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, I'm wary about deleting a page like this which isn't vanity... but the only Eight Party Alliance references I'm finding are in relation to Bangladesh. gren グレン`

The eight parties in question are the governing parties of Nepal, but the normal term is Seven Party Alliance, and the article prior to nomination was essentially simply an attack on the alliance BovineBeast (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the attack bit was easily fixed, then? It's still a decent stub. --Dhartung | Talk 04:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Especially since it's not the normal term, I doubt it can grow beyond that stub. Perhaps on reflection we should Merge it with Seven Party Alliance, since that page doesn't contain any note of the fact that it includes the Maoists these days. BovineBeast (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, "decent stub"—there's an oxymoron. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, less formal use than Seven Party Alliance but reliable sources do use the term. Economist The Hindu etc. --Dhartung | Talk 21:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unlses somebody decides to source this article. Yahel Guhan 05:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect If this term has been used in some sources, then the obvious thing to do is a redirect with an explanation DGG (talk) 19:00, 6 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. Aqwis (talk – contributions) 07:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Anderson (radio)

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

This unreferenced article does not establish notability. Rtphokie (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This article has been up for a long time and does establish notability. ~ Gmags2003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmags2003 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Neither rationale is sufficient. Longevity of an article means nothing in determining the validity of the article. With millions of articles, and only so many eyes, it just means that the article may not have been properly vetted yet. An assertion of notability only prevents an article from being speedily deleted. Beyond that, it is the responsibility of the author to provide reliable. verifiable, and independent sources. The radio station web site may be reliable and verifiable, but it is not independent. The blog is none of these. There are thousands of radio personalities on local stations throughout the US and the world. Little here puts him above and beyond the rest. DarkAudit (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and DarkAudit. Luksuh 21:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No apparent notability, common name makes news searches difficult, perhaps article creator Gmags2003 can expand sourcing which would influence an inclusionist like me to change my view. - Dravecky (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Local broadcast personalities, even if they have the greatest audience within a local market, generally fall short on WP:BIO, and this is no exception.B.Wind (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep In addition to being a radio personality, he is an established animation movie creator/digital artist. ~ Gmags2003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmags2003 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 30 March 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 Redirected to Settlers of Catan. Editors are encouraged to seek consensus as the the extent and appropriateness of merging this content to that page. Pastordavid (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Variations of Settlers of Catan

Variations of Settlers of Catan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page has been created as a home for fan-made unofficial non-notable variations. Wikipedia is not for things you made up; it's not a webhost and it's not a directory. Unofficial, non-notable variations on a game don't belong here, they belong on BoardGameGeek. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you didn't do your research. In America, games are not copyrighted by concept, but by name and artwork. So even if the a variation is not released by the copyright holder of the original game, doesn't mean that someone else cannot copyright and release their own variations. In fact, in the case of S3D Connector, that's exactly what they did. If being legally recognized doesn't make it notable, I don't know what does. Elliandr (talk) 01:54, April 1st 2008 (CST)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete variations on a game are not notable in themselves imho. merge if anything. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 10:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Settlers_of_Catan. Not enough merit to stand on it's own as a spinoff.Gazimoff (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Question what content do you think the article has, that should be merged? Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Not very much, essentially. The video game section of the main article needs some citations, which could be provided from this spinoff's inline links. There's one to an MS press release and another to a developer press release. That variants exist might be worth a sentence or two in the series section in the main article without really giving it undue weight, possibly with a single citation. I'm not going to advocate merging in the entire list as the individual variations themselves are not notable. I hope that clears it up. --Gazimoff (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, that sounds sensible to me. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep These are actual official variations, some of which you can buy in the store (I just did buy the fisherman one). There are some reviews. I only looked for the fishermen of catan one:
  • http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13257.phtml
  • http://www.criticalgamers.com/archives/board-games/now_shipping_settlers_the_fish.php

Between all the variations, I'm fairly certain notability is over the bar. Hobit (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment just to be clear, the nom is incorrect that (any?) of these are either fan-made or unofficial. Hobit (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I didn't say that - I said the article was created as a home for unofficial ones. See Talk:Settlers of Catan#Variations article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, I missed the difference, sorry. But just for the record, those unofficial ones don't seem to be there. Hobit (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Depends when you look - Elliandr keeps adding them back in. Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, cleanup, and improve like the Chess variant article or List of poker variants article. The Settlers of Catan article looks fairly long already, as does List of Settlers of Catan products — although I suppose much of this information could be condensed and merged into a paragraph in the Settlers of Catan article. Many of these variants were created by Klaus Teuber himself. --Pixelface (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not opinions. Mayfair Games, on their own website, presents variations of this game that they do not support but clearly do not have a problem with. The purpose of writing this article is not to be a "link farm" as Percy Snoodle puts it, but to present information for all kinds of variations physical and digital. To deny information from existing on Wikipedia therefore is an act of censorship. Articles exist for many games on Wikipedia, and many variations of many games. If you consider unofficial variations of a game, physical or digital, to be of the same game, then I feel this information should be merged into Settlers of Catan. If you consider this to be not of the same game, then they should be allowed to be talked about as it's own article. However, no matter what you consider it, this article complies with the rules. (the only reason I created it as a separate page was because I got tired of reading about people deleting the history files and felt that if so many people wanted it to be treated as a separate game, then I could live with it being on a separate page.) I looked at the conditions under which an article can be deleted, and none of them apply here. The information complies with a neutral point of view (displaying information from all sources without bias) no original research done, all information is true and not under copyright. References are listed and verifiable. No advertisements are being made. External links are not excessive nor do they dwarf information. Content listed is not copyright information.... on the contrary, it seems to me that some people are going out of there way to delete this kind of information, both from the history pages of [Settlers of Catan] and by trying to delete new articles in general. I strongly suspect foul play here. Especially since many of the variants, although "unofficial" were also created by the original creator of the game. I mean, just because the original creator of Tetris doesn't own the copyrights to his own creation because of socialism doesn't make his contribution to his own game any less important. So why would the contributions made to this game be any different? One way or another, one form or another, I strongly disagree with censorship of the facts and I won't sit by while someone makes a mockery of the facts. --Elliandr 00:05, April 1st 2008 (CST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliandr (talk • P.S. I know it would look like I am a new user, but the truth is I just lost my password as Elliander and although I had an e-mail tied to it for some reason it's not showing up in the system. I just wanted to make sure people didn't think I am a new user who hasn't used Wikipedia much before.contribs)
• Delete. Page seems an attempt to include so-called "Settlers" games in the list, which were removed by consensus from the Catan articles. Information on "Settlers of Catan" games can be merged into the Catan articles. Information on the unlicensed "settlers" games, if encyclopedic, should not mention "Catan" in the title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Article needs cleanup and improvement, but those can be solved by things other than deletion. Keep per the reviews that have been given higher in the discussion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep or Merge with Settlers of Catan. Luksuh 21:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep needs a cleanup but ought to be retained...--Cameron (t|p|c) 22:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I would think that any variations for which secondary sources exist could be included in the main Settlers page. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Isn't that a merge then?Hobit (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll clarify... Delete and redirect to Settlers of Catan, merging any "official" variations, i.e. those designed by Mayfair, to the main article. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. Hobit (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - seems unlikely that there will be any independent, reliable sources to cite: This is not a notable subject. Can be reduced to a single sentence on Settlers of Catan, linking to the offical mayfair games variants archive. Edit: Both Fishermen of Catan and the various video games have multiple independent references available but really need their own articles written from the ground up. Marasmusine (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Isn't that an organizational problem and not a reason to delete?Hobit (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete both. Love Line is now a redirect to Loveline. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Love Line

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

Also in nomination:

The B Sides (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I am nominating these two pages because they are both non-notable shows limited to a college radio station. I also recommend redirecting Love Line to Loveline after deletion since Loveline is a well-known national radio program. Danski14}}^(talk) 20:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -Drdisque (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Luksuh 20:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I was considering these for deletion as well: there's nothing notable about either subject. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom--Rtphokie (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge both Unsourced, insufficiently notable for separate articles, merge to parent WRPI article. - Dravecky (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect Love Line to Loveline as there's nothing worthwhile to move into the targe; delete The B Sides. No target here. B.Wind (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Winner Productions

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

Not notable. Probable hoax. Reads like a ripoff of Survivor (TV series). No relevant ghits. No hits at all on Google news. No evidence provided of any coverage whatsoever, so fails WP:N and WP:CORP. DarkAudit (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom -Drdisque (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This appears to be some sort of fantasy version of Survivor that people "play" by interacting on the Internet. No sources to establish notability, of course—this may qualify for a speedy per criterion A7, since I'm not seeing any indication of "why its subject is important or significant." Deor (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Luksuh 20:52, 5 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. Reasons given to keep are very weak. Popularity is not necessarily notability. WP:V not met and no evidence provided to suggest it could be. Neıl ☎ 00:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tater tot hotdish

Tater tot hotdish (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources, one external link, no assertion of notability or popularity. No real context or potential of getting beyond a stub. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, notable, more than a dicdef. -Drdisque (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep. Topic is semi-semi-notable and somewhat interesting. Luksuh 20:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• I always wondered what that stuff was called, it seems to show up at every potluck I go to... Anyway, all I'm finding is recipes, so I'd say delete for lack of coverage in reliable sources (and because I hate cream of anything soup). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Damn. Now I'm hungry. As for notability: has this been discussed in newspapers, books or magazines? Edison (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook - no notability, only reference is a recipe on a website that describes itself as a weblog. Maybe mention it as an aside in another article, but doesn't deserve its own article AFAICT. Also, it sounds like it's the sort of thing that has all sorts of "unofficial", local names, so it's going to be a job just working out what name it gets transwikied under. FlagSteward (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It says it's "popular", so that's an assertation of notability. I google-searched it and came up with quite a number of hits, including an article on wikiHow "How to Make Tater Tot Hotdish". Notability enough. Herunar (talk) 07:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment That's not actually an assertion of notability. Popularity != notability. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of recipes. WWGB (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with hotdish page Whitebox (talk) 06:06, 14 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. Neıl ☎ 00:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leo J. Meyer

Leo J. Meyer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Conflict of interest, subject of this biographical article is not of encyclopedic interest

• meyerj is an SPA who created this article to memorialize his father. The subject is not encyclopedic (a routine military career), not widely noted, the article amounts to original research and its creation raises many COI worries. This article went to AfD in January and the result was delete. This was overturned at a deletion review. The closing admin recommended the article be stubbed. meyerj has also installed a copy of it (an older, much larger version with photographs and a detailed award list) as his user page. I trimmed the article down in an attempt to save it but after reading the previous AfD discussion and looking at the sources can find no reason to keep it in the article space. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

AGF Comment. After re-reading this nom, I am not convinced the nominator is truly familiar with the military if he considers Meyer's case to be a routine military career. MrPrada (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep Man is one of only 303 people to ever earn 3 combat infantry badges, a decorated military officer. The limited number of that category combined with "not a paper encyclopedia" leads me to say we should keep this. Furthermore, the deletion review debate overturned the deletion. There's obviously already community opinion against deletion, even in the article's current state. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Would this mean 303 more articles could/should be created, one for each of these people? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Gee, would that overload the servers and make us have to delete 303 of the 490 articles about Pokemons? Edison (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do I think it may be significant in the context of notability that you have brought up Pokemans twice in a conversation about Leo J. Meyer? Gwen Gale (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Because he is implying that they should be deleted on the grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as you are to Leo J. Meyer. MrPrada (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep Per SwatJester. Subject is at least semi-notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion. Luksuh 20:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment note: Refs indicate he has been honored by the US Infantry Museum for his 3 CIBs, as well as being noted in stars and stripes, the Green Berets Magazine, and Veritas. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not significant coverage under WP:BIO. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure it is. Stars and Stripes is a major newspaper. Multiple independent sources confirm this guy's notability. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a single mention in a military, government owned newspaper is significant coverage (only clarifying my thought here though, I understand your take on the source). Gwen Gale (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As was noted in the DRV, the Army has had many ceremonies, etc., to honor the recipients of the 3d award of the CIB, which have received significant coverage. Just because Meyer's name isn't mentioned in a specific by-name list does not make the 3d CIB insignificant. Also, calling Stars and Stripes (along with the other PAO sources) insigificant is a Style over substance fallacy, these are obviously verified, notable, independent sources within the military. MrPrada (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, well below the military biography inclusion standard. Certainly an impressive achievement, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Dhartung | Talk 21:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Really? That link includes: In general, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.. This article would appear to pass that, though I can't see the paper articles in question. Hobit (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment All due respect, but the only source given that is independent of the subject (i.e. not published by the military) is the Army Times. --Dhartung | Talk 00:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• ????? The subject of the article is Leo Meyer, not the military.Hobit (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The subject does in fact, meet the military biography inclusion standard, as I have demonstrated elsewhere. The only other argument here then, is WP:MEMORIAL. However, the article as it stands, does not read as a memorial, nor is its purpose to memorialize the subject, so there is no actual argument for deletion presented here. MrPrada (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, you haven't demonstrated that he meets the military history inclusion standard at all. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as recreation of article deleted via AFD 2 months ago. If there is dispute over this decision, I recommend interested parties follow the Deletion Review process.Withdrawn - no opinion. At the time I placed my vote there was no indication by the nominator -- via the "previous nominations box" that any DRV had occurred. As this has been corrected and a DRV is indicated, I withdraw my delete "vote" and choose instead to abstain as I lack sufficient knowledge of the article itself to determine whether it is viable or not. 23skidoo (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The previous AFD was overturned at deletion review, as Swatjester notes above, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Scog (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep meets WP:N if the paper cites are accurate. Hobit (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - the three badges are not enough to confer notability, there is no way to verify that the cited sources contain significant coverage, and even if they did, you could say it's akin to a locally-prominent but non-notable person having obituaries in multiple papers.--Michael White^T·C 02:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notability has been established by the U.S. infantry museum and several published articles for a very rare hero of three consecutive wars. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Many garage bands have articles, and many hundreds of Pokemons. We can do no less for a genuine hero, or even potentially 303 such heroes. Edison (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Things to ponder: What establishes this individual as a hero or genuine hero? What definition, what sources? Are 303 individuals "very rare"? Does a military museum and some published articles (all but one of which are in military publications) establish significant coverage under WP:BIO? Wikipedia is not paper notes that notability requirements still apply to articles. The same project page notes Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Lastly, the notion Many garage bands have articles, and many hundreds of Pokemons does not apply. Some of those articles may cover notable topics, others may not, but we're discussing Leo J. Meyer here. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You've just established that he has notability: A museum and multiple published articles from both military and non military articles. Are you opposing this just because he's dead? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for military bios. Also, the non-military-controlled coverage is scant. I don't know where your question about his being dead comes from, I haven't thought about that as having any sway on notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Dhartung. He doesn't satisfy the military notability guidelines. Many soldiers with much much higher awards are excluded, so I don't see how this can be justified. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Dhartung's assessment is disputed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Dhartung's assessment is also WP:NOT#Policy. MrPrada (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Dhartung. -- Hoary (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: Dhartung's assessment is disputed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Let's be clear: Dhartung's assessment is disputed by you. And of course you have a perfect right to dispute it, as anyone has. He was a Colonel (an above averagely high rank, but not an outstandingly high one), and he clearly was mentioned in various places. He wasn't a nobody. His descendants may reasonably be proud of his accomplishments. But this doesn't make them, or him, encyclopedic. -- Hoary (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, we should be clear. Dhartung's assessment is overwhelmingly disputed by the last DRV, and a clear majority of contributors (20+) dispute, and agree that the 3d award of the CIB is notable. The view that is is not encyclopedic is a minority opinion, and seems more to me like piling on then researching the award and evaluating its notability. MrPrada (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Following the military notability guidelines cited by Dhartung and the sources provided by the article, Meyer was not a recipient of a country's highest military decoration, did not command a substantial body of troops (such as an army or fleet, or a significant portion of one) in combat, never held a top-level command position (such as Chief of the General Staff) and has not been the primary topic of one or more published secondary works. Hence, notability cannot be established under Wikipedia policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

He was a special forces full-bird Colonel. By definition that is a command of a substantial body of troops. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a military expert but my understanding is that "special forces" commands are smaller. I haven't seen anything to indicate he commanded "an army or fleet, or a significant portion of one" (as outlined by the military bio guidelines). Gwen Gale (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The information on User:meyerj's userpage about Meyer's promotion to colonel is not consistent. The table says he was promoted in March 1969 but the text says he was promoted to colonel in October 1969 and also transferred to Washington DC in 1969. If he was commanding battlefield troops as a colonel, it wasn't for long (if ever). Gwen Gale (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Dhartung. Xdenizen (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Dhartung's assessment is disputed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been transcluded to the List of people-related deletion discussions. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete the basic award is for being present in the field during a war. Being present during three does not seem to add all that much; its doing something noteworthy once you're there that makes people notable.DGG (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. The award is for being under direct fire in an infantry capacity. Since the scope of time for receiving the award is limited (i.e. if you received one in Iraq, you can't receive one in afghanistan), it severely limits how many of the awards a person can get, something that IS highly notable. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Being under direct fire in an infantry capacity (or getting an award for this thrice) is not one of the military notability guidelines. This said, getting three of these was clearly unusual but I can't see how it crosses the threshold of any notability guideline on Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Line four of the MILHIST guideline: "People who are the primary topic of one or more published secondary works." IE, Leo J. Meyer. Not sure how you couldn't see that. MrPrada (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Swatjester. No, we don't have to create 303 other articles, that's a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, as is the argument that other people with more awards don't currently have articles. Notability is established by multiple reliable sources, which we have. Verifiability is also established by reliable sources. The article needs work, but deleting it would fly in the face of core policy. It was undeleted at DRV, now let's improve it.Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My take is that the sources are reliable and show the subject isn't encyclopedic under core policy. I do understand that those who want to keep the article tend to interpret that policy more freely than others, which is ok with me and is why we're having this discussion. Hopefully the outcome will be unambiguous either way. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability is established by multiple "significant" or "substantial" coverage in reliable sources. I'm not sure we have that. To be honest, there seems to be enough to include this gentleman on a list of three-time CIB medal recipients but not for his own article. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I'm the sad sack who started this whole kerfluffle with my AFD nomination in January. In my nom statement, I tried to address the article's problems without disparaging Meyer's honorable service, and it's tough to do that while at the same time arguing that the CIB does not alone make one notable. I don't think I was successful. When I nominated it, it wasn't so much an article as a glowing hagiography, complete with retirement vacation destinations, at least one family photo, and his hobbies. The 'Notes' section contained only wikilinks. The ELs to museums, with the exception of the National Infantry Museum, take publicly-submitted material – in Meyer's case, material submitted by his own well-intentioned family – and publish it, which is not exactly what WP:V has in mind. In the current version of the article, one of the seven refs is to the number of American military personnel, and five are for one fact: he earned his parachuting wings. Is that what we mean when we say an article should be 'well-referenced'? In addition to those problems, it seems the only unit he directed was a drum & bugle corps, and I don't think that counts as a 'substantial body of troops'. We have article upon article on military officers of equivalent or lesser rank who have met our standards for notability during their service and/or after their retirement. Some of their articles are well-written and some are not, but their subjects are notable. Yes, Meyer served with fidelity and integrity, but he does not meet the MILHIST notability standards. - KrakatoaKatie 06:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, the assessment of the MILHIST notability guideline by KrakotoaKatie and Gwen Gale are misleading, and it is being misapplied.

• Guidelines for inclusion that always qualify include the highest military decoration, commanding a substantial body of troops, holders of a top level command (I'll leave the 4th one out for this moment)
• Conversely, any person who is only mentioned through OR or primary sources is probably not notable(not automatically).

Just because some are afforded automatic inclusion under the first guideline, does not mean others are automatically excluded under the second guideline. Also, there is a fourth sentence in the first guideline I left out: "People who are the primary topic of one or more published secondary works." Obviously, that includes Leo J. Meyer, so the argument that he does not meet the MILHIST inclusion standard is not only being misinterpreted, but is also patently incorrect. MrPrada (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with your interpretation. "People who are the primary topic of one or more published secondary works" refers to people who are the subject of books. In any case, no one can seriously claim that Leo J. Meyer is the primary topic of for instance Stars & Stripes. Its primary topic is the various doings of the United States military. We also have yet to see what Stars & Stripes actually wrote though there has been a host of fanciful speculation. For the Stars & Stripes article to meet the criterion, it would need to be significant or substantial coverage of Meyer's life.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

People who are the primary topic of one or more published secondary works may not be clear enough as a guideline. I don't think a smattering of mil articles qualify other than to note the non-notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTABLE states clearly (in bold text): "There is no official policy on notability." There is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. See the grounds for deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and, for interest, Jimbo Wales' view on notability, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion. MrPrada (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Notability is established by the significant coverage that are independent of the subject of the article. (Stars and Stripes, btw, is funded by the DOD, but editorially independent.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What evidence is there that the coverage was significant? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Very strong keep. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 3 for the DRV of this article, where there was overwhelming consensus that the 3d award of the Combat Infantryman's Badge is a notable achievement. There is an entire wing in the infantry museum, which is actually smaller then the Medal of Honor wing, since the 3d CIB is actually given out less frequently. Also, this nomination is flawed in that a COI/SPA are not grounds for deletion. Take the time to work with the author and improve it. MrPrada (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the military bio notability guidelines should be changed then. As it is, this article does not meet them. Something else to ponder in terms of article improvement: If all the remaining unsourced/original research were to be rm'd from the article, it would be a stub, only the 3 CIBs and parachute wings would remain. I don't think this would sway the notability question at all, since the 3 CIBs seem to be the only thing for which editors are truly claiming notability. As for SPA and COI, I put those in the nom only for context, as hints that a look at the sources and policy would show the article does not meet Wikipedia standards at this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

However, since the 3 CIBs are notable, there is no need to remove the other information, as it is sourced, is there? I think you've just voted to keep in your own deletion discussion. Roger's argument that there has not been significant coverage of Meyer receiving the three awarrds and moving it to a list of three-time recipients is the only logical argument for deletion thus far. MrPrada (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would rather strongly support an article along the lines of what Roger suggests. Meyer's 3 CIBs are not notable under Wikipedia policy, but I think the 303 holders of CIBs are very likely notable as a group under current policy. Meanwhile, this article does not meet the guidelines for notability and most of the other information in this article is not sourced (though I glark some of it could be). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I don't get why people are so gung-ho to delete this article - perhaps because folks are offended that the primary author is a relative of the subject? Seriously, it has 9 references even after being stripped down and it is far better written and sourced than many, many articles that aren't being considered for deletion every few weeks. Take some of the time spent here and put it towards improving other articles, and in the mean time recall that WP:V doesn't require that every fact in an article be sourced - only that if its veracity is challenged, it should be removed until a source can be found to back it up. Avruch ^T 23:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Follow on: I really don't understand the fact that some folks here are actually campaigning for this articles deletion, particularly when that is against the conclusion of a very well attended and quite recent DRV. Although it isn't the current trend at AfD, articles that are of marginal notability aren't automatically candidates for deletion. Even if he barely meets the notability guidelines of MILHIST (note that I said guidelines, and posit that he met them only because others in WP:MILHIST have said he does) then that should be enough to disqualify notability requirements in a deletion discussion. I think that irrelevant factors should be excluded from this discussion, those being: A) that the original author, Meyerj, is a relative and that B) the original article was, as Katie states, a "glowing hagiography." That makes for interesting writing in a discussion, but is absolutely irrelevant to an article that is being discussed on its own merits as it is currently written. Avruch ^T 23:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Although the article has been pruned, it is still very light on sources. What makes people notable is not what they did but what was written about it subsequently. The core principle of Wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please. The core principle of Wikipedia is NPOV. The phrase "verifiability, not truth" was added by a single editor, and its meaning is disputed. Does it mean we should include something that is verifiable, even if we don't think its true? Or do we say "verifiably true"? WP:N (and thus, WP:BIO) is a guideline and not a policy. Notability is debatable, and the lack of a large body of documentation about someone who has the sort of accomplishments that Meyer has should not lead directly to deletion. More importantly... Why does this particular article deserve multiple noms, despite the recent and well attended DRV that overturned the prior deletion? What is the basis for ignoring that consensus? Avruch ^T 01:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, articles should be built on what is verifiable rather than what I or you believe is true. Perceptions of truth are POV, whereas accurate neutral reporting of reliable sources isn't. To apply this to Col Meyer, very little information is attributable to reliable published sources. There has been vast speculation about what Stars & Stripes wrote but we have yet to see the actual article. I did ask their research department for a copy but was deterred by the cost ($100); the difficulties of paying (personal check); and the time-scale (two months).

I'm sceptical about the much-vaunted consensus at the DRV simply because of the weight placed there on 16 new references. On close examination, these turned out to be about another Col Leo J. Meyer, who is beyond all shred of doubt notable. People have talked here about improving the Leo J. Meyer article but the search for sources has been exhaustive and nothing has turned up. Without these, the article cannot be expanded and should probably be cut to reflect what actually is verifiable (which is not much). For example, Meyer is not actually listed on the National Infantry Museum CIB page as a three-time winner so that's not much use as a source.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 01:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, well said. With seven keeps and six delets at this point, it is unlikely that were will be true consensus either way. In my view the keep arguments outweight the delete arguments. MrPrada (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I found this quote from you, MrPrada, to be particularly enlightening from the previous debate:

The CIB is not a trivial badge. Ask any soldier, including my self. Aside from the CIB, you have Meyer with a Distinguished Service Medal, Soldiers Medal, 3 Bronze Stars, 2 Purple Hearts, 1 MSM, 1 Joint Commendation, 3 ARCOMS with V, four Presidential Unit Citations, and a Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Bronze Star, no easy feat. I still do not see how this fails notability for WP:MILHIST, per Edison, and Tyrenius. MrPrada (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It demonstrates that this wasn't just a colonel in charge of the kitchen (or even... marching band) in the Army. He is a decorated and notable soldier and commander. Avruch ^T 23:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Like the first AfD and the DRV this discussion is getting caught up with editors' personal views of this person's carreer. According to WP:BIO the relevant criteria for inclusion is that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". This article does not demonstrate that this person recieved such coverage - and it seems pretty clear that every possible source has been consulted given that the article discusses his artistic hobbies. The references are unacceptably vauge (eg, to issues of newspapers and magazines rather than the actual articles) and the minor facts they're being used to prove suggests that none of them is anything like an in-depth profile of Meyer, which is needed for them to establish notability. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Swatjester and Edison. John254 00:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable to me. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. First, I do not mean to cast aspersions on the memory of this gentleman. However, he simply is not notable. He fails to meet the basic notability guideline, because he either is not the primary focus of the source's coverage, or such mention as may be made is trivial. He fails to meet the additional guidelines set forth for WP:MILHIST because 1. He wasn't a top medal winner (although the Distinguished Service Medal certainly is an outstanding achievement), 2. He didn't hold a top tier command, or command an army/fleet 3. He hasn't been the primary topic of a secondary work. The opinions that have engaged the specific basis for the subject's notability seem to point mainly to the fact that he earned 3 Combat Infantryman Badges. This is not a notable (in WP terms) accomplishment, because it is awarded pro forma to members of infantry combat units who perform as expected. No heroic or meritorious (using those terms in the sense of military awards; any action under hostile file is heroic in general sense) action is required. The fact that the subject obtained three awards is mostly a testament to longevity, and a williness to stay in infantry units. In addition, I note that according to this link the rules permitting multiple awards of the CIB only took effect in 1952, greatly reducing the number of eligible awardees. Xymmax (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Winning three CIBs does not seem to satisfy the MILHIST notability requirements. Captain panda 00:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Very strong keep - It looks notable to me.Kitty53 (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Could you please explain why? --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Likely because his 3d CIB, litany of other awards (including a Distinguished Service Medal, which is normally only for General Officers), parachutist wings in his fifties, and scrimshaw artistry, are inherently notable. MrPrada (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Question People keep referring to "non-military publications" being needed or otherwise saying that military publications aren't useful here. I'm not seeing many of these documents as primary sources. Sure, an official site for all awards is primary. But Stars and Stripes or the Army Times can't be. So where in policy is this argument coming from? The best I've seen here is a crossways reference to the essay WP:LOCAL and even reaching out to that essay seems like a huge stretch. Can anyone clarify here? Hobit (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think military publications are reliable or objective, since they can have a conflict of interest in terms of recruitment, thanking past folks who have served and self justifying military solutions. However, if other editors do think military publications are reliable sources, I'd be ok with such a consensus for this kind of article. I'd like to say though, if this winds up as a keep, involved editors might want to think about clarifying the military notability guidelines, which this biographical topic does not meet. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see the argument about objective (though as far as I know that's not an issue for sourcing non-controversial facts), but could you explain why you doubt reliable? Are either the Army Times or Stars and Stripes known for getting things wrong or otherwise less reliable than a local paper? In any case, I think the argument with respect to the military notability guidelines is that WP:N is the first thing to check. If that fails to show notability then you go to the localized guidelines (things like professional players at the highest level of a sport are notable). At least that's my understanding, and I think WP:BIO supports that. In all cases, thanks for the response! Hobit (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The claim that the Army Times and Stars and Stripes are unreliable and biased is simply wrong and should be withdrawn. The Army Times is a private newspaper, owned by Gannett, and if anything is known for being rather critical of the military. Stars and Stripes is an independent publication written by independent civilians (many of whom are extremely notable and write for other publications, such as Andy Rooney) and edited (marginally) by the DOD. I think the person making the comment (who is also the AfD nominator) is a unfamiliar with the subject matter and may have confused them with Public Affairs (PAO), however in my view PAO is also a reliable objective source. MrPrada (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as it is a really nicely presented article with references and assertions of notability. I particularly convinced by Swatjester's points in the above discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted (G2, test page) by Jmlk17. Nonadmin close Xymmax (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Petree

Self-proclaimed "man of God" who was identified by the WP:COI bot as violating WP:AUTO by writing this vanity article about himself. Started a bible college that he named after himself, then wrote an article here about his college, which was immediately speedied. After his bible college was deleted, he replaced it with self-promotional spam [18]. Is the author of a self-published book on songwriting that fails WP:BK. No WP:RS whatsoever offered to establish WP:N. Google kicks up mostly self-generated promotional sites and fringe fundamentalist blogs that clearly fail WP:RS. Is a WP:single-purpose account that has shown up here with no apparent purpose other than to self-promote his self-named bible college and self-published songs and book. Qworty (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per conflict-of-interest. Larry needs a press agent. According to his autobiography, he's written 55 hit songs (but none of them are named) and he's won three "songwriter of the year" awards (but we don't know who bestowed them) and he's written a book (but we don't know who published it or when) and he earned a D.D. (but we don't know from where). The Bible college is online only. Mandsford (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Mandsford -Drdisque (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Luksuh 20:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:57, 6 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. Consensus has already been reached. Direct concerns to here. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarence Schmalz Cup

Clarence Schmalz Cup (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is the challenge trophy for the Junior C league of a Canadian provincial hockey league. Sorry, but I fail to see how that qualifies as notable. Guy (Help!) 19:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep - "JzG/Guy", I find myself a little bewildered at your actions as of late. Why did you bother posting an AfD for this article if you felt you could get away with just flat out deleting the entire series of leagues and their teams without notice? The Clarence Schmalz Cup is an article that has been on wikipedia without contention for almost two years. It is the grand championship of the third tier of Ontario hockey. This level is a part of the feeder system of the National Hockey League. The "C" or "third tier" is only determined by the size of the towns and cities involved -- not skill level or notability. It has been a part of hockey tradition for ... i don't know... 70 years. DMighton (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Luksuh 20:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep please understand a sport before nominating its articles for deletion. -Drdisque (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It is very much a notable trophy. -Djsasso (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep – very historic and notable trophy. Flibirigit (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as per above. paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)^{a door?} 22:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Well, at least this one's tagged properly ... Keep Championship that has been competed for since the 1930s. Plus, if the teams and leagues are notable, then the trophy that's awarded to their champion certainly is as well. Clearly notable but, if the article doesn't demonstrate it, tag it so that the community knows it needs improvement. Mlaffs (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This is a trophy that has been awarded for 70 years now. Its history alone asserts and establishes notability. Resolute 22:10, 6 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 A7 by User:Bishzilla, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The cold and heartless

The cold and heartless (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:BAND. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: There is nothing that even looks like an assertion of notability. Stuff like this does not need to trouble AfD. db-band would have been perfectly justified. Only if it made an assertion of notability and we had to decide whether it was true and sufficient would it need AfD. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• A7 speedy delete, tagged as such. By their own admission the band formed less than two weeks ago; article doesn't even pretend to be notable. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 19:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Consensus forms that the subject is notable, and appropriate action is a rewrite. WilliamH (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Institutional memory

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

Original essay, offtopic. While institutional memory/ insitutional knowledge is a valid topic in organizational psychology, this article attempts to describe all of human culture. It's supposed to be about knowledge embedded in an organization. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The article needs work: it needs cleanup, it needs some rewriting, it needs much better referencing, but it does not need deletion. The many hits on Google news, Google books, and Google scholar show that this term is fairly widely used and the concept is being discussed in scholarly writings and should, therefore, be treated here in Wikipedia. I favour cleanup and expansion, not deletion, in this case. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 19:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Look around you. Wikipedia is a good example. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Is that the rationale for keeping it? JFW | T@lk 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete As might be expected, this is not the first article about the subject; note collective memory, cultural memory and (cited in this article) corporate memory. Like the nominator, I agree that this is a valid topic, and an unencyclopedic essay. It asks rhetorical questions like "Is institutional memory fading?". It could be cleaned up and rewritten beyond recognition, but the end product would be redundant to similar articles. It's been done, and it's been done better. Mandsford (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Deletion is not the answer for such articles; rewriting is. JFW | T@lk 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Does "weak delete" mean that when people go to look for the article, it'll be very faded and difficult to read? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 08:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Article requires a lot of clean-up, but is still usable. Luksuh 21:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I considered cleaning it up but there wasn't anything about institutional memory to keep. Perhaps the "corporate memory" article could be cut/pasted to here, and then "corporate memory" redirected (an extreme merge). Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. "Corporate memory" pertains only to corporations; institutions can take many forms. I had an attempt at NPOVing this article after it was created and populated by Ombudsman (talk · contribs), but got no further than the intro because it's not quite my field. There is just a need for NPOV, sourcing etc. JFW | T@lk 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. Institutional memory is a valid encyclopedic topic, but this article is largely unreferenced and unfocused. It needs to be improved, not deleted. --Eastlaw (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite: Valid topic, but needs a lot of work, rewriting and referencing. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walker Valley High School

Walker Valley High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: Non-notable local school. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep - If a source can be attributed and properly wikified.Alexsanderson83 (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. This article went to AfD all of 3 minutes after creation. I will check this one out. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing nomination. Made mistake, high schools are always notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hadley Corner

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

This building fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL as it is not even built yet, and sources are not readily available. Prod removed by author after a brief discussion on my talk page. —BradV 18:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources were listed on the web page at creation time. The article was created with "underconstruction". I immediately pinged a person who has helped with this in the past to help flesh out the article, but they won't have had time to notice this yet. Given that the article existed for literally 5 minutes before it was PROD'd, I'd like not only for this AfD to be dismissed, I'd like a better understanding of what provokes people to do this to new articles. I've seen it several times, and all it seems aimed at doing is inhibiting editors. - Denimadept (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Some people believe have higher standards than others regarding what should be and what shouldn't be in the project, support the deletion of content that isn't extremely notable (Shakespeare, George Bush, etc) and spend time canvassing articles looking for ones that don't match those standards and nominate them for deletion. Then the people who have lower standards and support including content that isn't super-notable live at AfD and serve as a counterbalance. In most cases, it works out in the end. But yes, it's function is essentially to either do nothing or to inhibit editors from doing something that the consensus says isn't notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that AfD is useless, but I've seen too many new articles attacked that way when it was clear they were just a start. Recently, another person attacked a bunch of new articles about Slovinian bridges. All those articles were kept even though they're still stubs because that's how lots of articles start out. If something is clearly non-sense, I can see the speedy delete, but just about anything needs more consideration. - Denimadept (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Wait, article is still under construction and has been tagged as such since it was created just ninety minutes ago. Let the author finish his article, then see if it meets policy. Much too soon to tag for AfD. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 19:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, calm down and wait before subjecting articles to the harshness of AfD. Besides, subject has been subject of multiple pieces of secondary coverage. 21:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per OlenWhitaker. Luksuh 21:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Because I like to see Articles be around for more days than I have fingers and toes before getting nominated for AfD, just as much as some people have "high standards". Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:57, 6 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, and I've moved David Cantor (actor) to this page. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Cantor

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

No need for this disambiguation page. Proposal to delete this page and move David Cantor (actor) into its place. Sam Staton (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for move I agree that it's not needed. The other item is a different spelling (Kantor); it would probably be a good idea for both articles to have a {{distinguish}} at the top. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, excessive disambiguation. This could probably have been done at WP:RM. --Dhartung | Talk 18:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Luksuh 21:41, 5 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. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 International Rules Series

2007 International Rules Series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article about a sporting event which didn't happen, referenced only to a primary source. Should be deleted or merged to international rules football. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested by BHG. The 2006 series was played in October, and it was shortly after that (December) that the decision was made to discontinue the event altogether. Thus, it's doubtful that there was much preparation for the 2007 series. Mandsford (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per BHG and Mandsford. Luksuh 21:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge.... but possibly the future of the series section of the International Rules Series article would a better place as it has got most of the article there already. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:59, 13 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 Verifiable? yes. Notable? no. ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Wheeldon

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

Contested prod (no explanation). Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep — The individual clearly exists. There is no need for a player to play in a professional league; we have articles on loads of American college athletes. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I clearly exist, yet there is no article on me. The highest level this guy has played at is the ninth level of English football, or the fourth division of Belgian football. Playing at that level is clearly not notable, and neither is the person given 46 Ghits. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The fact that you exist means that an article about you is perfectly appropriate. "Notability" is irrelevant and wrong, as it is both totally arbitrary and utterly undefinable. Verifiable existence is the only relevant criterion. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
      • If you disagree with policy, take it up somewhere else. As for your argument about the "loads of American college athletes" who have articles, I would say they should all be deleted too, as they have not competed at a professional level. – PeeJay 22:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Your under the mistaken impression that WP:N is Policy, it is not! It is only a guidline. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Why? What you fail to understand is that so-called "policy" is not descriptive or normative at all. We are not bound to abide by it. On Wikipedia, all "policy" is is a description of what has typically happened in the past. So you don't set out to "change policy"--you simply change what is actually being done, and then "policy" reflects that. What you are suggesting is backwards from the way it's supposed to work. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
          • We are not bound to abide by it. "We"? And yet, somehow, you feel compelled to demand that people follow your own personal criteria as if it somehow was more valid than anyone else's. The logical underpinning of your argument is that the editors can collectively decide what goes here or doesn't -- wrong in various ways, but let's leave that aside -- yet somehow you refuse to accept the decisions they actually make as valid if they don't match up with your...unique...interpretations. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. --Calton | Talk 00:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Comment Kurt's got the wikipedia spirit. And not just because he clearly gets WP:UCS and WP:IAR, but also because the recent idea of a professional is far too narrow a criteria to use as a test for an athelete's inclusion on wikipedia. --Firefly322 (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
              • That would be wrong on multiple levels: the project, as I recall, is for an encyclopedia, not an undifferentiated and standards-free data dump, and the last time I checked, making claims that 99.99999% of editors don't buy is the furthest thing from "common sense" as could possibly be imagined. Hint: adding a couple of wikilinks and waving your hands vigorously does not an actual argument make.
              • also because the recent idea of a professional is far too narrow a criteria to use as a test for an athelete's inclusion on wikipedia - speaking of handwaving: was there an actual argument and/or evidence anywhere in there? --Calton | Talk 16:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
                • Although I take exception with your choice of nomenclature ("undifferentiated and standards-free data dump") because it implies a simple list of facts rather than actual prose, I fail to see the difference between what you mean by that and an encyclopedia. It's the same damn thing. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - The player obviously fails WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played a match as a professional footballer, and he has done nothing that would make him otherwise notable. – PeeJay 18:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE ukexpat (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The article seems to have reliable sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Luksuh 21:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't a directory, it's an encyclopedia. --Calton | Talk 00:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Wheeldon has been noticed by the BBC, at least twice. --Firefly322 (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete -- not only does he fail WP:ATHLETE, he fails WP:BIO as we do not seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article. Jfire (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. No significant coverage in reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Note evidence [19] suggests that both Otolemur crassicaudatus and Jfire made their votes merely in response to my proding of the article on Corruption in India. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Aside from a lack of WP:AGF, I don't see how a link to a page history is evidence. User:Otolemur crassicaudatus also !voted on another recent AfD at around the same time [20]. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Otolemur crassicaudatus and Jfire have both made valid points in their !vote. I see no reason to assume bad faith !voting here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE, which is in itself a pretty generous set of notability criteria. --202.168.39.34 (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE --Angelo (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep i have been playing football everyday for three years now at Reading as a youth...Torquay as A Pro and now in belgium...isnt it nice that an english player is playing pro abroad...i dont see what the problem is i have links from the BBC sport and i can get some from sky sports also.... what else do i need??? —Preceding [[(Mockingbirdyeah (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC))]] comment added by Mockingbirdyeah talk • contribs) 11:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Above editor is the article's creator ChrisTheDude talk) 09:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • ....and apparently its subject as well ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as it fails notability criteria. Given the above comments, significant tidy-up and removal of POV and COI material may be required if the result does turn out to be "keep". -- MightyWarrior (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Satghare Ram Mandir

Satghare Ram Mandir (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

probably a hoax Warut (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Has zero ghits, is complete original research, or possibly WP:MADEUP, and very likely a WP:HOAX etc.... etc... etc... take your pick. --Pmedema (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G3 per above. Clearly a hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't assert notability in any way, hoax or not. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

could someone explain just why it is certainly a hoax. I'm removing the speedy tag till then. DGG (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Google is now turning up a wikimapia area. I added the coordinates to the article; it's not conclusive from the aerial photo what exactly is tagged. The WM tag is very new and hasn't been voted on as a "real place", making me think it's also hoax material. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably a real temple/shrine, just eminently unnotable. There are oodles of these all over India. Some Indian states have thousands of shrines to a single Hindu god. --Dhartung | Talk 19:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete -Drdisque (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Luksuh 21:18, 5 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. Malinaccier (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The World´s End

The World´s End (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This film has not begun production. It is not even listed at IMDb as being in development. Per the notability guidelines for future films, this article should not exist until it is verified for filming to have begun. To put things in perspective about the projects of director Edgar Wright, he has been "making" Ant-Man (film) since summer of 2006. I would recommend placing a couple of sentences about this project, The World's End, at Edgar Wright's article. There is no certainty that this anticipated project will become reality. Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Crystal. Luksuh 17:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFF: Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles. JohnCD (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL and as per [21] explains that it is only speculation and a "Working Title" which does not satisfy having an article. --Pmedema (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. Many factors, such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. This film is merely in development; in accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 18:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete "is the title, possibly working title"... definitely WP:CRYSTAL. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: For what it's worth, I've created an "Upcoming projects" section at Edgar Wright, including mention of The World's End. This separates work he has actually done from work that he may do. Feel free to incorporate any details about his projects in development there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete pn fails WP:CRYSTAL ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abdul Arts

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

• Delete: Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage in third party reliable source or anything. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO, has no WP:RS, and was created by a WP:SPA with bad english.--Pmedema (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above -Drdisque (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:59, 6 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. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 21:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Fraser (footballer)

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

Disputed prod. Whilst James may have a glittering future ahead of him, and without prejudice to a future recreation of this article should he achieve success, at present he falls short of the generally accepted notability citeria for footballers in that he has not made any appearances for a fully professional team. nancy ^(talk) 13:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 14:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - As of right now, per WP:FOOTYN. The reason? Plays for a professional team..but hasn't made any appearances. This is on the cusp, but just fails short. Also, [22] - WP:BIO. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Luksuh 17:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep — The individual clearly exists. There is no need for a player to play in a professional league; we have articles on loads of American college athletes. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet WP:Athlete at this time. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moslova ep

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

prod removed by author. Album was never released and does not pass WP:MUSIC. Links are for the band and are not references. No pages link there. Reywas92^Talk 16:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Luksuh 17:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -Drdisque (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 05:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:59, 6 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 as result of WP:HEY, there is clearly no consensus to delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oakland Zoo (cheering section)

Oakland Zoo (cheering section) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

DELETE SPEEDY DELETE A7. Non-notable school organization. Article does not establish notability as per WP:ORG. WP:V. An opinion letter in school paper and a t-shirt sale link do not count. Attempted to speedy-delete as per CSD A7 but user with history of vandalism kept removing tag.— NTAC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'd like to withdraw this AfD nomination. Article has been satisfactorily upgraded. NTAC (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• • That's fine, but once you make an AFD nomination it's in the hands of the community, and while you no longer wish to have the article deleted, this AFD must remain open until and unless all delete opinions are withdrawn. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This AFD nomination should be speedy keep and User:NTAC, the nominator, has clear bias in past edits. The total of his contributions to wikipedia include 1) Vandalization the Wikipedia entry on Walt Harris, former Pitt head football coach, by redirecting its page to Wlat Harris, the spelling of which was a popular insult for this coach[23] by referring to his childhood dyslexia. 2) In light of his Oakland Zoo nomination, an extremely hypocritical defense (and clear overstatements in doing so) of a similar student section article, Nittany Nation, the student section of a one-time rival school of the University of Pittsburgh, in discussions involving two previous nominations for that article's deletion. (Please note that that the Nittany Nation article is now of quality and notability sufficient for wikipedia, article at the time was [[24]]) 3) Through April 6, 2008, User NTAC had no other edits or contributions to wikipedia except for the series of deletion nominations for the Oakland Zoo article. 4) User: NTAC attempted to delete his own USER tag on the original deletion nomination line above and his tag was only restored later by User:Frank Anchor. This behavior boarders on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and I have concerns that User:Titelman (see below) could be his sockpuppet. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Luksuh 17:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7 as soon as an admin sees this. JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep absolutely notable and passes WP:V. I agree, the Oakland Zoo is definitely a real organization, it is mentioned in the first paragraph of this Post-Gazette article: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07358/844102-175.stm. and an ESPN article: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=ncb&id=3216311 I'm sure there are many other examples. It is highly relevant to the University of Pittsburgh <Baseballfan789 (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sources you cite do not even have the organization as the subject of the articles. As per WP:ORG, "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Mere mentions do not suffice. NTAC (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Those sources have more than "trivial and incedental coverage" as the policy puts it. <Baseballfan789 (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
      • "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." You qualify a simple mention as in-depth coverage? NTAC (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Please also see my list of references below. This is a highly notable student section within the subject matter of college basketball.CrazyPaco (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep According to WP:ORG, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources," which the Oakland Zoo is, based on sources mentioned by Baseballfan789 above. It is also known on a national scale (at least to those who follow college basketball, especially big east basketball) Frank Anchor, (R-OH) (talk, contribs) 17:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Again, one tiny trivial mention per source does NOT satsify WP:N or WP:V. Also note that the above use is the creator of the article. NTAC (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It should be noted that the above user is the original nominator.NewYork483 (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Response Fortunately, those articals are more than trivial mentions. In fact, they are reliable, independent secondary sources, that, in part, describe the cheering section Frank Anchor, (R-OH) (talk, contribs) 18:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment. The Oakland Zoo is NOT the subject of the sourced articles! It is simply mentioned as an aside. You do not even cite the source in the Wikipedia article because it adds nothing notable. NTAC (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Please see references added belowCrazyPaco (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Could merit a mention at Pittsburgh Panthers men's basketball. Zagalejo^^^ 18:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • A redirect to the above page would be approprite. NewYork483 (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect and add a small section to Pittsburgh Panthers men's basketball. The organization exists and passes WP:V, however its notability is not etablished with the sources in the article or on this page. Scooter3230 (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. If it truly passes WP:V, then the sources cited in the actual Wikipedia article should reflect that. An opinion letter in a school rag and a t-shirt sale link do not fit the criteria. As per WP:SOURCES, "questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Furthermore, the sources mentioned in this discussion are not cited in the Wikipedia article because they add no notable content. NTAC (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, the lack of notability that you mention is exactly why there should be a redirect.Scooter3230 (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect per Scooter3230; if it can be cited as existant a sentence or two would be appropriate. Somebody might also want to look at the "life" section of the U of P template (Template:University of Pittsburgh), as there are a few articles in this realm. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete clearly A7 ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep per sources given higher up in article. Failing that, the content should be moved to the article containing the University's sports teams and redirected. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Coverage may be in major papers, but they are major local papers. (But the WVU fan in me says speedy, salt, and burn the section to the ground. Then take the ashes and scatter them to the four winds. I'm sure every loyal Mountaineer would agree.) :D DarkAudit (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral but edging towards keep. See concerns below. My WVU bias remains. That won't change. Ever. :) DarkAudit (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The preceeding comment should be ignored due to an obvious bias Scooter3230 (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC).
  • International notability is not a requirement. That would eliminate over half of wikipedia. Clearly the section is nationally notable within the context of major college basketball in the United States as per ESPN featuring the section January 16, 2007 with Dick Vitale describing it as one of the "finest" student cheering sections. It has also been ranked among the best cheering sections by other national media and publications (eg. Sports Illustrated, March 6, 2006).CrazyPaco (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The same could be said to everyone here who has a connection to the UPitt or is a "major" contributor to the article. NTAC (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
      • That would include the above user, since about 75% of his/her edits are on either this AFD or the article itself. Scooter3230 (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Pittsburgh Panthers men's basketball
  • Expansion of the article now making merger unmanagableCrazyPaco (talk) 08:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep This is a highly notable college basketball student section within the overall subject of college basketball. Despite the AFD nomination is not being applied equally, a primary sources tag or expand tag is more appropriate to apply before an AFD. For instance, see also Minnesota's The Barnyard, Ohio State's Buckeye NutHouse, Wisconsin's Grateful Red, Iowa's The Hawk's Nest, Michigan State's Izzone, Penn State's Nittany Nation, Illinois' Orange Krush, Purdue's Paint Crew, Northwestern's Wildside (Northwestern), Duke's Cameron Crazies and Krzyzewskiville, Arizona's Zona zoo. Some of these have passed AFD nominations by the very same editor who nominated the Oakland Zoo page. That said most of those listed are not as notable as the Okland Zoo with the exception of the Cameron Crazies and perhaps Izzone, and at least on the same level as the Orange Krush and bigger than the rest. The Peterson Events Center, thanks to the Oakland Zoo, has been ranked by a survey of the players as the most difficult facility to play in the Big East Conference for multiple years in a row (Sports Illustrated, March 6, 2006). In addition, it is the largest student organization at the University of Pittsburgh and participates in institution and revision of many policies, including seating and student ticket distribution and is mainly responsible for institution of the"Loyalty Points" program for students at the University. These can all be added with primary references given appropriate time to develop the article. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We're not talking about any of those. DarkAudit (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Sure, precedence doesn't denote notability, the reasons I noted above do...national recognition, importance to the school, size, etc. But, I expect all of the student section articles will have AFD tags applied quickly by the original nominator since I'm sure the Oakland Zoo student section page was not singled out either for alternative reasons and I'm sure there was at least a little bit of research into the topic before the article was tagged for "speedy" deletion without first applying an expand tag or primary source tag. Tonight is the final four, so I don't have a large amount of time to research this topic. Here are some references of the section that I will add to the article when I get a chance. Clearly, these references along denote notability (along with the reasons I noted above). Dan Steinberg's Washington Post blog about the Zoo, Pittsburgh Trib-Review: Oakland Zoo has grown into Top Student section, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Pitt's home court advantage], PIttsburgh Post-Gazette:Pitt fans give boost, Post-Gazette: Pitt ticket madness, Post-Gazette: Pitt student ticket problems, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: And the Crowd Goes Wild, Pittsburgh Tribune Review: Oakland Zoo wild about the Panthers and there are others. There is also been controversy surrounding the Zoo logo, which went to US Federal Court: Pittsburgh Post-Gazete: Zoo shirt right dispute, Post-Gazette:Oakland Zoo trademark dispute, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Local vendor can keep selling shirts. I found these in about 10 minutes of online searching and, now, have to cut it short because the second game is starting. I didn't even get to search for all the lists in the national media (SI, ESPN, etc) that have listed it among the best sections in the nation. Now, is someone going to say it isn't notable? Clearly, just from this list, there is more than enough notability.CrazyPaco (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Also, the Oakland Zoo was featured on ESPN's Student Spirit Week on January 16, 2007.CrazyPaco (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
      • The Oakland Zoo was also featured in the the book, 100 Years of Pitt Basketball, Sam Sciullo, Sports Publishing LLC, 2005, pages 124-125, ISBN: 1-59670-081-5.
      • You've got a blog and the local papers. Of course the PG is going to cover them. Just as they should. That's not enough. DarkAudit (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
        • The blog is from Dan Steinberg, a major professional sports journalist published on-line by the Washington Post who has his own wikipedia entry! The other references are local independent papers of a major American city have EVERYTHING to do with notability. These are two major American newspapers with articles specifically written about the student section. Did you even follow the links? The student section is notable by any standard of notability previous applied. Honestly, either you don't have any clue about college basketball as a subject matter or you are showing your inherent bias as a West Virginia fan (as so tagged on your User page) who is the major rival of the University of Pittsburgh.CrazyPaco (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
          • It should be obvious my endorsement statement should not be taken too seriously. But as far as the sources are concerned, I do not believe blogs are reliable sources. I also think that the PG's and Trib's coverage are pretty much par for the course for local stories. Local stories. They may be major newspapers, but they're covering stories only a few miles away. By your standards every event that gets more than a couple of mentions in the New York Times or Chicago Tribune would deserve an article. It doesn't work that way. DarkAudit (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Then please strike or reverse your endorsement due to your admitted bias. I disagree, blogs of a professional journalists like Dan Steinberg that are published on-line at one of the biggest papers in the world are not meaningless, especially when that blog is at the official site of the of the Washington Post (and is a clear example of notability outside the region, in addition to the noted Sports Illustrated and ESPN profiles). In addition my references provided from the Post-Gazette and Trib-Review are not simply brief mentions. There are full articles in the both specifically about the Oakland Zoo student section. There is no requirement or expectations for major metropolitan newspapers to cover student sections! These aren't small papers of college towns like Lawrence, Lincoln, or State College, PA, and space in these papers is prioritized to the professional sports teams (Steelers, Pirates, and Penguins) and leagues first and then they provide the largest newspaper coverage for West Virginia University and Penn State University in the state of Pennsylvania, not just Pitt alone. Multiple coverage in these papers denotes high notability for the region of Western Pennsylvania. I live in Philadelphia and I've never seen coverage of Temple's, Penn's, Villanova's, Drexel's, LaSalle's or St. Joe's student sections in the Philadelphia Inquirer....nor do they have the national recognition. There is clearly a difference here. There are also multiple articles in both Pittsburgh papers that have implicated important facets in university life directly attributable to policies initiated by the Zoo student section. This is the Zoo making news on its own even outside the sports sections (a clear indication of notability), not that the zoo is profiled just for its existence. For instance, there was widespread coverage of a federal legal case involving the section's logo in these papers. There would be exponential more articles in university associated papers like the "University Times" or the independent student-run "Pitt News" because it is clearly notable within the context of the particular major university for which they are based. But further, the Oakland Zoo has been profiled on national TV multiple times and has been sited by multiple national media sources as one of America's best student sections. There can be no doubt this is one of the major collegiate student section within the subject matter of college basketball. The fair question is whether the college basketball student sections deserve their own pages, however I don't see any other pages having been nominated for deletion so it makes me wonder what the intent was for this nomination. If they other student sections pass notability, certainly the Oakland Zoo does per the major referenced sources I noted above. CrazyPaco (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not rescinded, but amended. DarkAudit (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • Yes but the local papers are not affiliated with the University itself, thus making them outside sources Frank Anchor, (R-OH) (talk, contribs) 01:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Not only that, but most would say the Post-Gazette is outright hostile to the university. Regional notability is clearly sufficient.CrazyPaco (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Plenty of time and chances were given to improve the article. Article was proposed for deletion in February before being contested (in a rather non-civil manner), and later had the notability tag added (and removed) and very little was done to improve it. NTAC (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • That is true, I noticed in the history page the notability tags were inappropriately deleted too quickly. The poor referencing on this page do lend to the impression of a lack of notability were not addressed appropriately. Speaking for myself, I was not watching the article at the time and or never saw the tags due to their inappropriate quick removal. These tags need re-added until the problems with the article are addressedCrazyPaco (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per nom, clearly A7 Bardcom (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Massive Keep. Why would anyone want to question the Zoo? It's one of the top student sections in the nation. Ask the opposing players and coaches. Ask Carmelo Anthony, he is one who said so. Dick Vitale, Jay Bilas, Dan Shulman, Bill Raftery, I can go on and on, they all love and have nothing but the highest respect and compliments for the Zoo. The Zoo has helped the team to the best ever stretch in Pitt basketball history since its inception. I could go on, but this is a moot point. This is a silly argument. The Zoo is massively relevant and very powerful. Craigketo (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC) — Craigketo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Merge to Pitt Basketball article. The article fails to present independent, non-opinion-piece reliable sources to verify notability. There's not enough said here that couldn't be said in the basketball article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Now that attention is drawn to it, the article will be expanded, and now is getting close to a size where it would be too large to merge. The references listed above provide multiple independent reliable sources verifying its notability.CrazyPaco (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment (down here so it doesn't get buried in the mass of indents) There is nothing wrong with the article's primary author coming into an AfD to defend his or her work, especially when constructive arguments can be made. "Blog" is a dirty word when it comes to the WP:RS crowd. No matter how credible a blog may be, they see that word and their eyes glaze over. ESPN and SI citations would carry far more weight as references than Pittsburgh papers covering Pittsburgh stories. At least they would with me. DarkAudit (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - asserts notability. Other articles similar to this exist, with no more notability. Grsz11 06:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. They are not up for discussion. Keep it to the merits of this article. DarkAudit (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Oakland Zoo (cheering section) article has undergone major revisions since AFD nomination including the addition of reliable third party references indicating significance/notability. Please take time to reevaluate the article. Proof reading and additions are appreciated.CrazyPaco (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment regarding WP:CANVASS: This AfD has had some off-wiki canvassing - see here: [25]. Just keep an eye on it. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 13:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP as per article improvements. Clear notability established. And I'm a PENN STATER. BroadSt_Bully ^[tlak] 15:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'm still concerned that virtually every reference listed is either from the local Pittsburgh papers or affiliated with Pitt itself. if the ESPN or SI citations were linked more directly, it would go further than linking the local article. DarkAudit (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Once again, the local papers in question are in no way associated with the university. Scooter3230 (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I think all he's saying is that NATIONAL sources ENHANCE notability - not that local sources don't matter, which is what you seem to be interpreting his statement as. BroadSt_Bully ^[tlak] 18:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Exactly. A local paper covering local events is what a newspaper is supposed to do. By some editors' standards, any subject covered more than once or twice in the Chicago Tribune or New York Times would be worth an article merely because of the notoriety of those papers. All these references to the PG and the Trib are local papers doing their job, covering events in their city. I would be more convinced if there were more references that weren't coming out of Pittsburgh. DarkAudit (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Please actually read the local paper articles as they discuss the student section's relevance on a national level many with interviews from national sports commentators. Also noted are the national coverage by ESPN and Sports Illustrated, and there are very few references from the University itself. Your insistence that references citing multiple feature stories in two major metropolitan newspapers somehow is somehow diminished in notability because they are "local" has no previous precedent in wikipedia that I am aware of. Again, insisting on national notability (although there are multiple Zoo article references that suggest the section is nationally recognized within the realm of American College Basketball) is not a requirement or half of wikipedia would disappear instantly. I will repeat myself because you keep repeating yourself. There are NO requirement or expectations for major metropolitan newspapers to cover student sections! These are not small papers of college towns like Lawrence, Lincoln, or State College, PA, and space in these papers is prioritized to the professional sports teams (Steelers, Pirates, and Penguins) and leagues first. After this, they provide the largest newspaper coverage in Pennsylvania for West Virginia University, Penn State University, Duquesne University and Robert Morris University, not just Pitt alone. Multiple coverage in these papers denotes high notability for, at least, the region of Western Pennsylvania. By comparison, I live in Philadelphia and I've never seen coverage of Temple's, Penn's, Villanova's, Drexel's, LaSalle's or St. Joe's student sections in the Philadelphia Inquirer....nor do they have the national recognition. There is clearly a difference here between your typical student section and the Oakland Zoo. The is the Zoo also made news on its own, outside the sports sections (a clear indication of notability), when it received widespread media coverage in the area (including both Pittsburgh newspapers) of a federal legal case involving the section's logo.CrazyPaco (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Vote changed to Keep per new modifications Scooter3230 (talk)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The problem is that the papers are covering events that are in the same town as the paper. If that's all you're going to cite, then yes, it does diminish notability. The ESPN citation isn't ESPN itself, it's a Pittsburgh paper citing ESPN. Local notability isn't the same as national or international notability. Cite ESPN. Cite SI. Cite something from Philadelphia. DarkAudit (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • How do you site ESPN television broadcasts that features the cheering section? Do you want me to cite a YouTube video of it? The references site newspaper accounts of the broadcasts with quotes from the national ESPN analysts. You are being completely ridiculous. Again, despite the provided evidence, there is NO requirement for national notability. Definitively regional notability is more than provided. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sports Illustrated now directly cited.CrazyPaco (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:LOCALFAME "arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable." Local notability is still nonetheless notability. Most, not all, of the sources used are from the Post Gazette, which is from a major metropolitan area close to the University. The paper itself has nothing to do with the university, it is just printed in the city that the university is located in. The article also cites articles from Champaign, IL and the Washington Post. Frank Anchor ^Talk (R-OH) 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you, I would like to also note, that the Post-Gazette and Trib-Review both have individual beat writers covering the major university's sports teams listed above (considered in the district coverage area), but only one student section has been profiled, and profiled repeatedly.CrazyPaco (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
        • It's more than just printed in the same town. It's mission is to cover events in that town. Whether it has any affiliation with the university or not has no relevance. It is my opinion, and I am well within my rights to hold it, is that a local paper covering local events is just that. Local. If a subject aims to national or international significance, then I believe that the sources provided should reflect that. No there is no "requirement" to that end, Just as notability isn't "required" or reliable, verifiable, and independent sources are "required". They are guidelines. They're subject to interpretation. How I interpret the guidelines may or may not match up with how others interpret them. I never said the sources were invalid. I said that there were too few sources that were not either affiliated with the university or were local to Pittsburgh. DarkAudit (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Yes, you are allowed your opinion, as am I. Its not the City of Pittsburgh Panthers, but rather the University of Pittsburgh Panthers. Theyre different and the lack of affiliation with the university is more than just relevant. it is crucial. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 21:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Obviously I completely disagree with your opinion, which you have every right to have, but the reason I keep responding is that you seem intent on diminishing the validity of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Pittsburgh Tribune-Review newspaper citations. In regards to local papers, your quote: "too few sources that were not either affiliated with the university or were local to Pittsburgh" does not match WP:LOCALFAME. Your quote asserting "whether it has affiliation with the university or not has no relevance" also contradicts Wikipedia:Independent sources. On a somewhat different topic, I personally don't believe University affiliated newspapers should automatically be discounted as non-credible source, especially in light that they often have independent editorial boards. However, major professional independent metropolitan newspapers definitely increase verifiability for any topic as they determine the "newsworthiness" of a particular story for their region with as much non-bias as is possible for an editorial board comprised of humans beings. That clearly fits within WP:LOCALFAME and Wikipedia:Independent sources. There are now 10 different referenced news articles from the two major Pittsburgh area newspapers (not school papers) that are cited in the Oakland Zoo (cheering section) wikipedia article. These articles specifically discuss various aspects of the student section, including, and most pertinent to our discussion, it's national perception. How there could be a perceived lack of, at least, local notability per WP:LOCALFAME is beyond my understanding. One final point is both papers also have "missions to cover" everything in their districts as well as their "town" because they have wide circulation outside the City of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County limits. This is why there is local TV, radio and newspaper coverage of West Virginia University sports as well, as that school falls within the Pittsburgh DMA. I do not want to go down a school rival pathway, especially since you are a West Virginia fan, so with that said, WVU has a substantial reputation for its student section in the world of college athletics, and if it had a student section article on its own, I would wholeheartedly support its existence.CrazyPaco (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
          • The affiliation (or not) with the university was not relevant to why I think there are too many local sources, to the exclusion of more national sources. I was not calling their independence into question. I do not take issue with the school's paper as a source, either. They run stories about the Zoo, but they aren't part of the zoo. DarkAudit (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
            • let me ask you this, given the 10 PG and TR newspaper citations and 2 book sources, do you still feel that the Oakland Zoo article fails the test of notability, at least according to WP:LOCALFAME?CrazyPaco (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Fail, no. Still would like to see more from outside the city, though. DarkAudit (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete A7 per nom Titelman (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC) — Titelman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment possible Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. The user Titelman has no other wikipedia contributions other than the above comment. The user name suggests a deliberate misspelling of a well known University of Pittsburgh radio talk show call-in fan/message board handle indicative of a possible university rival using deception. In an interesting coincidence, the acronym NTAC is also the name of a group of well known Pitt sports fans at one time common to a specific Pitt sports message board. CrazyPaco (talk)

Strong Keep i still don't understand how this isn't notable or needs to be deleted. cameron crazies is an article, why can't this be? whoever nominated this is an idiot Superbowlbound (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If we are confused with sources- news articles: http://pittsburgh.about.com/od/basketball/p/panthers.htm http://pittsburghpanthers.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/012006aag.html

blog: http://pittoaklandzoo.blogspot.com/ facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2200205870

• • I agree the article should be kept, but read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and especially WP:CIV. BroadSt_Bully ^[tlak] 22:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep it civil. About.com and facebook are not considered reliable sources per WP:RS. DarkAudit (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Vote changed to Keep as rewritten NewYork483 (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep with the citing of more national media (much as it pains me to do so... j/k :)). DarkAudit (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Nominator has withdrawn Afd. SunCreator (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to University of Pittsburgh. Non-notable club. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vehicle fuel efficiency comparison

Vehicle fuel efficiency comparison (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, removed by author. Article is unencyclopedic; basically just a list of vehicles and their fuel efficiency. Fails WP:NOT#STATS. Seems like WP:OR and WP:SYN. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Very weak delete. I want to say move to some kind of list like "List of cars by fuel efficiency", which I think is more appropriate, but I can't find any similar lists that subdivide the List of cars, so there really isn't much precedent. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Sources are reliable, but this work is a clear synthesis. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Unencylopedic and WP:SYN. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Luksuh 17:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete not really sure it's intended to advance any position, but it's clearly OR. -Drdisque (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

transwiki to wikiversity perhaps --Emesee (talk) 08:25, 7 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 consensus. I have no problem with a rename, as was suggested below, but the consensus is to keep this article intact. ----- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of the future in forecasts

Timeline of the future in forecasts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: The entire article is a hodge podge which involves timeline of all field including nanotechnology to space. Wikipedia is not indiscriminate collection of information. The information in this article should be merged into the individual year articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: Since this AfD process started, a significant amount of work has been done on the article. It has been expanded, pruned, cleaned-up, re-formated and re-arranged. References have been checked, and a new lead section has been written. The article should now consist of credible, referenced near-future forecasts, with no fictional sources whatsoever. It simply presents a neutral sumnmary of these verifiable forecasts. There is no additional interpretation or analysis. No conclusions are drawn; no position is advanced; there is no speculation about the reliability of the forecasts. There is no attempt to synthesise the forecasts into a "future history". Please take the current state of the article into account when determining consensus. Thank you. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: I find it easier to navigate as it currently is than merged into articles about individual years. Even though the list includes several technologies, it is a reasonable size. If the list gets too big, then I would support splitting the list into lists by individual technologies. Q0 (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The article is not indiscriminate. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep clear inclusion criteria, well referenced, well organised and useful for navigation - in fact, completely the opposite of an indiscriminate collection of information. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The first paragraph places everything in the correct context and most items are well sourced.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. We have articles on future events when we know for sure about them. Just because someone says "we will have XYZ by the year 123" or because a company promises "a self-driving car by 5432 in every home" doesn't mean it /will/ happen. This list is nothing more than a crystal ball. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Please don't exaggerate. The article says nothing remotely resembling "a self-driving car by 5432 in every home". It is a timeline of credible extrapolations from known technologies by reliable sources, most of which are dated within the next 20 years. The most distant dates in the timeline are 2050 and 2095. The fact that government agencies and international companies have made these forecasts is clearly notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: My interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL is that Wikipedia cannot say "Technology X will be available by 2050," but can say, "Person Y estimates that technology X will be available around 2050." Q0 (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. Hut 8.5 16:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, but it appears to me that nearly all of the predictions in this list are verifiable. I don't think this information should be merged into the individual year articles, and AFD is the wrong venue for that anyway. I would probably support a new name for the list though. --Pixelface (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete as per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future timeline of Earth. While verifibility is not the problem, Wikipedia is not indiscriminate collection of information, and thus all the above votes are invalid. The concensus is currently to have year articles containing the information, even if it is not the most navigable. Editorofthewiki 19:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yours is the only argument that makes me think. Having read the debate for that previous article, it leaves me with the understanding that it was aindiscriminate information. That does NOT apply to the current article however and I'm unable to compare to the cited article because it's contents are deleted. SunCreator (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete an absolutely indiscriminate list that mentions various topics from various works of fiction (or some vague speculations) that somehow have something to do with the future. "Below is a comprehensive list of major future events..." no it's not. It's a completely indiscriminate list of fictional or semi-fictional future-trivia. And it's written entirely from in-universe perspective -- it describes fictional ("predicted") depictions of future as if they were somehow real. It's the ultimate crystalball to beat all crystalballs. The statements are sourced, but the sourcing is to primary sources, not to reliable, independent, secondary sources. Now give me some of these secondary sources that show that these "predictions" are notable; or if you can't find any, then delete this future-cruft. Indiscriminate collection of trivia, that's what it is. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Response to Henrik Ebeltoft - there are several flaws in your argument:
    1. The only references in the article to fictional or "in universe" timelines are the small number of forecasts attribuited to "Arthur C. Clarke, 2001" (8 out of 50 items). I have proposed in the article's talk page that these forecasts should be removed, as they detract from the quality of the article. The forecasts attributed to "Arthur C. Clarke, 2001" were not actually part of a fictional timeline, but were from an interview with Clarke in 2001. I have added a reference to the article.
    2. As far as I can tell, all other references are to factual forecasts from a wide variety of non-fiction sources. Some of these are primary sources, but WP:NOR allows use of primary sources as long as there is no additional interpretation or evaluation of their contents.
    3. You conflate "fictional" and "predicted". Not all predictions of future events are fictional - see for example Graphical timeline of our universe. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough, not everything predicted is necessarily fictional; but in the case of this article, it comes so close as to make no difference. Surely, there can be very detailed, realistic scientific studies of how the future may look like, but this article seems to reference mainly some vague, pseudo-realistic musings by various thinkers, whether intended as fiction or as a true prediction of the future. (Nobody can really tell.) However, the main objection seems to be that the sources are mainly primary sources; there are no reliable secondary sources. You say that "use of primary sources as long as there is no additional interpretation or evaluation of their contents" is allowed; I disagree. The most essential criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is that there has been coverage in multiple, independent, reliable published secondary sources -- sources which really discuss the subject from an independent perspective. Primary sources are indeed allowed for verification of particular statements or facts; but secondary sources are essential. In other words, Wikipedia must only document things which have been discussed elsewhere -- "interpretation and evaluation of content" by independent secondary sources is really essential, and this is absent here. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The references in the arricle include a United Nations report, a US Census Bureau database, economic models from Goldman Sachs and PWC, and reports of research from several universities and commercial companies. Hardly "vague, pseudo-realistic musings", and certainly not intended as fiction (yes, of course you can tell the difference !).
2. On primary sources WP:PSTS says "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia" as long as an article "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source". This article conforms to that policy. Gandalf61 (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and almost everything is cited to Arthur C. Clarke, a science fiction writer. Grsz11 22:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I ask any closing admin to ignore the statement by Grsz, it's false on both accounts, the article fully meets WP:CRYSTAL because it's verified and 'everything' is not by Arthur C. Clarke, just check the article! SunCreator (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Please do not exaggerate. Out of about 50 forecasts in the article, I count only 8 that are attributed to Arthur C. Clarke. And of course Clarke wrote many non-fiction works. Anyway, I have proposed on the article's talk page that these 8 Clarke forecasts should be removed unless a non-fiction reference can be found. Impact on article will be minimal. These Clarke forecasts actually come from an interview with him in 2001 - I have added a reference to the article. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral pending a >5x expansion so that there are good sources and cleaned up and information under every heading especially environment, Keep if this is performed. ~AH1^(TCU) 00:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep as discriminate, fascinating, and referenced article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmmmm.... "discriminate" -- where's that? The article mixes everything together, things both probable (can't seem to find any, if it comes to that) and improbable (everything else). "Fascinating" -- yes, to be sure, very fascinating -- and a very bad argument for keeping. "Referenced" -- yes, but to primary sources. Where's the independent interpretation and evaluation in secondary reliable sources? Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It is an organized list that is far from unwieldly that deals specifically with verfiable predictions for the future, i.e. "discrminate." "Very" should be avoided. "Use this word sparingly. Where emphasis is necessary, use words strong in themselves." -William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition (New York: Allyn & Bacon, 2000), 63. "Rather, very, little, pretty--these are the leeches that infest the pond of prose, sucking the blood of words. The constant use of the adjective little (except to indicate size) is particularly debilitating..." -William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition (New York: Allyn & Bacon, 2000), 73. The topic of "future predictions" and "future timeline" are the subjects of published books. Moreover, the topic is consient with published specialized encyclopedias of the future per the First pillar. Finally, I improved the article's grammar and reference format. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep notable high profile subject with a few high-profile predictors which should be easy to source. Subject lends itself naturally to a list-like timeline. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future timeline of Earth. This is almost exactly the same thing. Editorofthewiki 10:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment This article cannot be "almost exactly the same thing" as "Future timeline of Earth", because the nominator of this AfD, User:Otolemur crassicaudatus, took a completely opposite position in the "Future timeline of the Earth" discussion, where he argued strongly for keeping that article. An editor would not take such oppositely polarised positions if the articles were similar. Otolemur has clarified the difference between the articles on my talk page. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. As per Casliber. --McCormack (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You must've obviously not read the debate linked above. Editorofthewiki 10:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - No valid argue put forward for deletion. This is a highly referenced and verified document about possible future events. WP:Crystal don't apply because it's verified, IINFO#IINFO doesn't apply because it's not indiscriminate. SunCreator (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Consensus seems to be that adequately sourced predictions should be allowed into the various future "year" articles - indeed, some contributors here are suggesting just that. Per WP:LISTS then, this list is a legitimate aid to navigation and browsing, it complements the individual articles, and as such it should be kept. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• NOTE: User:Henrik Ebeltoft has been blocked for using an alternate account and IP as socks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: None of which were used here...I don't think. Grsz11 17:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The main account did participate here and once we determine someone is disrupting Wikipedia in any fashion, we usually disregard their comments. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as a model of WP:SYNTH. None of these sources say all these things will happen in this order. Even if this article used entirely non-fiction sources, it would still be a fictional (or WP:OR, your choice) future history with no place in an encyclopedia. Articles like this are why WP:CRYSTAL is a policy. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The topic is consient with published specialized encyclopedias of the future per the First pillar and it is not original research. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The existence of in-universe fictional encyclopedias does not mean Wikipedia should become one as well. The WP:5P you propose supports this article does not allow original research (which a WP:SYNTH is), and requires verifiability. These assorted sourced opinions when shaped into a future timeline become unverifiable speculation, / edg ☺ ☭ 18:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
      • An article that cites sources with speculation does not mean the article itself is speculation, it's merely citing predictions made in a variety of sources. WE'RE (Wikipedia, I mean) is not saying that this is the future, hence it's not "Timeline of the future," but "Timeline of the future in forecasts. Acknowledging some of Nostrodamus's notable predictions or the Book of Revelations with primary sourcing in a straightforward manner would not similarly equate to original research. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Creating an article History as it would be in prophecy by combining Nostrodamus's predictions and the Book of Revelations would not be straighforward, and would indeed be WP:OR. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Not really; mentioning notable predictions is fine. Perhaps what you suggest is that the article just needs more context, i.e. like Nebuchadnezzar's statue vision in Daniel 2, but in such a case we can have the timeline of predictions and then have a section on secondary sources that evaluate some of those predictions. Encyclopedias combine primary and secondary sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment edg has misunderstood WP:SYNTH. Obviously this article does not breach WP:SYNTH as it is not synthesing material to advance a position or to support an editor's conclusions. It is simply summarising the source material without additional interpretation. As WP:SYNTH says: "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing". Gandalf61 (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, but we don't /know/ any of this is going to happen. It's speculation. While it may be sourced and professional speculation, it is still just speculation. Unlike the Beijing Olympics happening this summer (which we know almost for 100% certain /will/ happen and merits and article in and of itself), these things tend to A) Be farther off, and B) Not be an event that we write about by itself. For example, when the world population hit 6 billion, we don't have an article called 6 billionth person. We make a mention on the appropriate date and year page. The same will happen with these events, when they occur. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I think because of the 2008 Tibetan unrest a lot of uncertainty actually pertains to the planned Summer Olympics this year. We could always augment the regular prose of the article by explaining how predictions of the future is a common practice. Accoridng to one of those Page a Day Calendars, Lord Kelvin, One Heck of a Prognosticator, president of the Royal Society in the 1890s, and disbeliever in virtually every scientific discovery, claimed that “Radio has no future,” “I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning,” and “X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” Orville Wright, in 1908 claimed that “No flying machine will ever fly from New York to Paris.” And Irving Thalberg, MGM movie producer, asserted in 1927 that “Novelty is always welcome, but talking pictures are just a fad.” So, making forecasts of the future's timeline has a historic basis with which we can perhaps expand the article and then have the list section. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment edg and ^demon have misunderstood WP:CRYSTAL. This article does not breach WP:CRYSTAL because it does not contain speculation, editors' opinions or analysis. It simply presents a neutral summmary of verifiable forecasts - there is no speculation about the reliability of these forecasts. As WP:CRYSTAL says: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced". Gandalf61 (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I would suggest you rephrase your comment from "misunderstanding" to "have a different interpretation of it than I do." Who is right is beyond me, but policy often is interpreted differently (for better or worse) by different people. This being said, saying someone "misunderstands it" attempts to put a label on us of being "wrong." I'm not wrong, you're not wrong. We just look at the issue differently. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay - let me say that I believe that you have misunderstood WP:CRYSTAL, in the sense that your interpretation of it is not the generally accepted interpretation. At least we can agree that the article does not contain editors' speculation, editors' opinions or analysis, and that it simply presents a neutral summmary of verifiable forecasts ? Those are objective facts - I do not see how there can be differences of interpretation there. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scarface CLimax