Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< April 6 April 8 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete; there was limited participation in this AFD, but it's clear that no sources have been provided that meet WP:N, and that nobody has been able to locate any that do. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kaphle

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

This Indian surname appears to be non-notable. A recent PROD was removed as a (somewhat trivial) source was found. There is still no assertion of notability for the surname, nor is there anyone notable listed as bearing this surname. —BradV 02:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Per lack of sourcing, and no sourced assertation of the name's notability. Lawrence § t/e 17:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 21:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Harries

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

I believe this to be not notable enough for inclusion per our guidelines. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak delete, I wouldn't have nominated it myself but am reluctant to oppose nomination. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Change my vote to Support based on new version which includes multiple sources of her notability. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, entirety of notability appears to be "was on a chat show as a child", "is a transsexual", and "once got beaten up". Neıl ☎ 00:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Neil, you said exactly what I was going to write. Harries' appearance on Wogan is so non-notable that he isn't mentioned in our article. Transsexualism and violence toward transsexuals is not notable in and of itself, perhaps sadly. Risker (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment In fairness I think the BBC would have covered the case without her having been on Wogan as they cover tens of such cases each day. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps true, Squeakbox. I was referring to the fact that our article on the television show Wogan doesn't mention Harries' appearance, suggesting his presence was relatively unimportant. Risker (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Given the number of people who have appeared on Wogan, the overwhelming majority were celebs, doubt anyone would be mentioned in Wogan's article unless they murdered the crowd.... Minkythecat (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That suggests, then, that being on Wogan isn't a guaranteed metric of notability. I'd hasten to point out, I've been on TV several times now, (interviewed about one thing or another) and I'm not notable by any stretch of the imagination. ++Lar: t/c 11:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The Wogan article is rather short, and can't by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as comprehensive. The lack of a mention there is meaningless, particuarly as Wikipedia can't reference itself. PC78 (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • delete - we should have a WP:BLP2E to cover cases where someone's name is in the news for several unrelated things but those don't really establish notability even combined --Random832 (contribs) 01:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Per nom and Neil... delete ... textbook example of a BLP we should not have. ++Lar: t/c 02:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • strong keep notable as a child with an appearance on the BBC and is mentioned in 'where are they now' shows on tele to show his transformation, only last year. It's late now so I'll do more tomorrow, but 59 google news articles [1] special, random, Merkinsmum 03:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • So this person is notable... why exactly? Notable for being notable? ++Lar: t/c 03:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
She's been in newspaper articles and on the telly. Call it a 'media personality', and perhaps model? And transexual:) It's no different from many 'celebrities' these days, many don't have to do anything involving talent. special, random, Merkinsmum 03:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
If you can reflect that in the article I will certainly reconsider my vote, especially having myself already done my best to at least make it a decent article in the style sense. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Zero claim to notability. What you have is a media appearance base upon expertise on antiques - which has been shown to have been rehearsed. You've then someone who changed sex. A couple of documentaries on TV, all of which had the "oh, look this person's a bit odd" feel to them, was attacked and errm, that's it. Sorry, there's zero notability in any of those points. If you include based upon the antiques bit, then you can justify including anyone from silly end news stories. The changing sex, well, quite a few people have had such operations, can't see everyone in here. Documentaries don't in themselves lend any credibility, especially when the aim is degredation. People attacked? well, with the number of chavs in Britain, not notable. Lauren Harries is an extreme self-promoter with zero achievements in life. At least, no achievements that would qualify for an entry in a real encyclopedia, which this laughably claims to be. Heat magazine, sure. Encyclopedia Brittanica, never. Minkythecat (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Television appearances over an extended period (20 years) strongly suggest at least fringe notability as a media personality. Article is sourced, references look good. PC78 (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Think LOL is the best response. Wogan appearance, THE most notable and indeed only claim to fame - unsourced. Channel 4 documentary - which, if you'd watched it, was extracting the urine - unsourced. Channel Five show - unsourced. Only sourced TV appearance... oh wait, something that may or may not happen. The only other references apply to the personal life section, and that's specifically to an assault. One of which is actually the result of the trial... please refactor your keep rationale... Minkythecat (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Think "Sod off" is the best response. Did you bother to look at any of the refs or external links? Wogan is mentioned in one of the refs and also the Guardian interview, while the Kieth Allen documentary is mentioned in another. While I have no taste for "celebrities" who are famous for being famous, such people tend to be prevalent in this day and age, and to my eyes there is enough here on Lauren Harries to satisfy WP:BIO. PC78 (talk) 08:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Think WP:CIVIL is the better response. Whilst Wogan may be referenced, it's in a powder puff interview with the Guardian. And indeed contradicts the text in the wiki article. All your amazing sources appear to be are a single interview, which by it's very nature is hardly impartial or objective. The rest refer to the assault case; oh wait, and a Lauren harries wiki style page full of self-promotion. You may be satisfied by Harries, but unless you can provide more substantive, independent sources, you're reaching. Minkythecat (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Your comment was hardly brimming with civility either, so don't try and throw that at me. There's nothing wrong with the Guardian interview as a source, and here's a couple of proper articles ([2], [3]) about the Keith Allen documentary. The bottom line is this: Harries is (just about) notable, the article asserts notability, and sources exist (here's a few more for good measure: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). That's good enough for me. Your arguments, on the other hand, tend to smack of IDON'TLIKEIT. PC78 (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Have you actually read the links you posted? All of which either refer to Wogan - at age 12, not 10 as the Wiki article states. The newspaper articles focus upon Harries sex change... oh, and being beaten up. Kindly provide something that's notable other than those 3 elements? A BLP should exist for all Wogan guests, hmmm? For all people who change sex? For all victims of assault? You've provided zero evidence for any notability other than having changed sex and been beaten up. It's clear true encyclopedic content. Minkythecat (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No, my initial keep comment was based on media appearances over a twenty year period. So far we have Wogan (sourced), the Keith Allen documentary (sourced), the Big Brother non-appearance (sourced), Trust Me, I'm A Beauty Therapist ([9]), and a possible future show (again, sourced). Add to that the sex change and assault (both with ample sources), yet another article ([10]), and you have plenty that satisfies WP:BIO. Now you can ignore all that, debunk it, whatever, because I'm tired of repeating myself and will say no more on the subject. PC78 (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Citing bizarre mag et al interviews is merely propagating the Paris Hilton line of notability; famous for being Paris Hilton. Far from a continued 20 years of notable publicity, you've a) the single Wogan appearance. b) Years of silence. c) A well publicised sex change. d) numerous articles you've not referenced referring to "Lauren falling in love..." all utterly non notable. d) A "documentary" which existed solely to poke fun at Lauren. e) An assault. f) Totally minor television appearances where Lauren was used solely as "freak" interest.
The sole notable incident in Lauren's life was the Wogan appearance; everything since then has solely rested upon the sex change and the impact since. Everything allegedly notable has stemmed solely from the blurring of personal and self-publicised life. Minkythecat (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make a case for Paris Hilton being non-notable, then be my guest. Unfortunately the threshold for fame is depresingly low, which is why we have articles on the likes of Faria Alam, a woman famous only for shagging someone who was actually famous. You may not like it, I may not like it, but that's really besides the point. PC78 (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The entire above discussion loses no meaning at all without the first sentence of every comment, and would have been a lot more pleasant on the eye. No more snippy back and forth from either one of you; please restrict your comments to the discussion at hand. Neıl ☎ 09:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete An interesting instance of the bankruptcy of our N=2RS rule in Wikipedia:Notability (people) There is nothing actually notable in any non-WP sense of the word, but there is media publicity in RSs including the Guardian for the trivial accomplishments. If we mean what the text says, that "anyone at all with the sources is presumed to be notable," the article must go in. Frankly, I don;t think we mean it literally, and it's time we revised WP:N to say what we mean, which I think is that having 2 RS is a factor, not a presumption of notability, relevant when there's no other usable criterion. Here the usable criterion is that the accomplishments are trivial. DGG (talk)
  • Comment - User:Nousernamesleft closed this AFD after just 24 hours or so ([11]) and deleted the article. Deletion policy states AFDs run for 5 days; I have undone the close and restored the article for the duration of the deletion discussion. Neıl ☎ 17:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
he's deleted the talk page! lol I'm going to actually discuss improving the article there. special, random, Merkinsmum 17:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, missed the talk page. Restored. Neıl ☎ 17:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • comment- I don't get it, how can it be claimed this person is not notable? She has been the subject of articles in the Guardian, the Independent and other serious reliable sources. That is what we mean by notability, -being noted in reliable sources and verifiability of the contents of the article by those sources. special, random, Merkinsmum 17:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It is always better to have information, than not have it. The subject of this article is notable. TharkunColl (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Not quite a BLP1E, but marginally notable for two distinct things. Tough call, but lean towards weak keep. Lawrence § t/e 17:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This won't be the last we see of her, as she's really keen to be on television etc, and she's interesting enough to meet the needs of modern reality tv. special, random, Merkinsmum 23:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

comment I have added a little about her involvement with the big brother shows, complete with four sources. Hope this helps. special, random, Merkinsmum 00:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There were five already, so there are now eight reliable sources for this person's article, I'm not sure about the ninth one listed:) Although that one has info favourable to her. So- this person and article has numerous reliable sources, 8 are given for this article's content, some include full length interviews. That's pretty incontravertable notability and verifiability.special, random, Merkinsmum 11:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
unless i misread the article, the point of this is that she did not go on Big Brother. This may be commendable, but I don't think it's notable. DGG (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
that's not for us to judge whether the fact is notable. It was considered notable by several WP:RS sources that she was very likely to go into the house. The reasons why she didn't go in were interesting and notable- one way or another, and were discussed in sources. You could look at the source or google for further speculations.:) It's not derogatory to mention that this person was considered at the time to be some source's strong guess or assumption that she would enter the house- and it is worth briefly mentioning as something sources have discussed about her. The 'big brother' show was something which at the time a lot of everyday people followed intensely in the UK, and valued every in and out. She was also a regular on Big Brother's Big Mouth, which wasn't mentioned in the last version of the article. If this is deleted, I will save it in my user space and add more as she gets upto more, until she's eventually been on telly etc enough to be more solidly notable- though I think she is already due to being known to everyday people in the UK from her childhood appearances, as well as people being amused (or annoyed) by her more recent appearances on telly. To the extent that several dozen reliable sources chronicle her exploits. Merkin's mum 19:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
No, the fact *somebody* was going in was notable. The same amount of media attention would be gained from anybody, so you can't claim notability to harries over that. Reasons for not going in? Well, the Jade Goody racism kinda meant putting harries in wasn't going to happen as everyone had to be on best behaviour -which shows you the rationale for Harries being in. Aside from that OR, the reasons for not going in were interesting? Allegedly because no nappies would be provided? Off topic again, I don't exactly think you can claim a reliable source for a BLP which, you know, refers to the living person as an "oddball". You seriously believe putting sources in like that are applicable for a BLP? A regular on BBBM? No - wasn't on every show, did appear on a few. Equally, does that mean anyone who appeared on more than one BBBM episode in a series are thus also notable? Please don't presuppose everybody in the UK would recognise Harries - clue, not many would. Go out and conduct a straw poll, think you'll find a minimal amount of people would. The kind of people who believe Hello magazine to eb an encyclopedia... :p Minkythecat (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Now you're presupposing about whether people would know who she was. :) PC78 (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Minky ? I didn't call her an oddball and the article doesn't mention that. Some sources might say what the want and we don't have to, for NPOV, and simply included what was reported in WP:RS rather than their opinion/editorializing . If Big Brother didn't provide what she needed, that reflects badly on them rather than her, and she was comfortable with discussing it herself. Merkin's mum 14:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Try reading reference 11 then. "SEX swap diva Lauren Harries is threatening to pull out of Celebrity Big Brother - unless she can take in nappies. The oddball transsexual has sported diapers since surgery to change gender from child prodigy James five years ago."... reference originally sourced from the Daily Star. A great paper who broke the excusive of a bus. A bus on the moon. Ah well, it'll be kept, I'm sure, people acn reflect on such a great job they've done in contributing to an encyclopedia... Minkythecat (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This person is well remembered by many members of the British public and this article is certainly of interest as an answer to one of those "whatever happened to...?" type questions. Jooler (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
"whatever happened to..." is usually an admission of lack of notability. DGG (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Your assertion is incorrect. "whatever happened to..." almost invariably means someone who had achieved notability at some point in the past. For example whatever happened to Merhan Karimi Nasseri; what ever happened to Eddie "the Eagle" Edwards and what ever happened to Gary Coleman. Jooler (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
...and of course, notability is not temporary.PC78 (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Not only that, but in her case the answer to 'what ever happened to..' is known, so we can provide people with useful info they might not otherwise have known. And she's not just got past notability but is still sometimes in the press or on telly, so we can update whenever she does something new that is covered, and add to the article. Merkin's mum 14:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - There are plenty of WP:RS referenced. WP:N is easily met. Aleta Sing 18:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. --  Aleta Sing 18:41, 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 - lack of sourcing & references, fails WP:BIO. KrakatoaKatie 02:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hasan Salehi

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

News hits are false positives for someone at the ministry of Labour. There's no evidence he's a notable political activist. While information might be hard to come across from Iran, he's allegedly in Sweden from where we could expect to find sources if they exist. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 23:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Per lack of sourcing, and doesn't appear to be outright notable. Lawrence § t/e 17:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete; there was limited participation, but this is a sufficiently open-and-shut case that relisting isn't necessary. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kyjuanderful

Sources are not worthy, did a bit of searching on sources and couldn't even find anything about the album. Should be deleted. Y5nthon5a (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that there is a song on the St Lunatics Page with it on there, but it's over a year away, and that's not enough proof this album is coming out. The myspace page looks like it was made by a fan, so it could very well be just a song that was released. I still say delete.Y5nthon5a (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - an album set for a 2009 release with only myspace for sourcing. a search doesn't reveal any better sourcing available. -- Whpq (talk) 18:01, 9 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 01:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William Sledd

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/William Sledd Articles for deletion/William Sledd (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/William Sledd (3rd nomination)
Articles for deletion/William Sledd (4th nomination)
William Sledd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete because it fails WP:BIO all references that I can access are just simply tiny 'mentions'. Still not notable outside youtube. YooTuba (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Just squeaks by, I think, and growing notability. It could be counter productive to delete this one, since I suspect we'd just have to put it back out in x months. Lawrence § t/e 17:42, 9 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 - lack of multiple independent sources. KrakatoaKatie 02:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Saltz

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

Is the first person from Montana to be killed in Iraq a claim to notability? The claim is true per 4 hits in Google News but I don't think that's enough to pass WP:BIO. A lot of people have been killed so far in Iraq, this appears to be sad for his family and friends, but not particularly notable or even newsworthy. Ghits don't assert that he was notable for anything else. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 23:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete A7: only notable for one thing. Source is from Montana. Thinboy00 @022, i.e. 23:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment there's one from San Francisco in the search I linked. I think the vague claim to notability is enough to avoid a speedy, although not AfD TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 23:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not quite notable enough. Local sourcing is fine, but there's no broader notability claim here. Lawrence § t/e 17:43, 9 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, article opened at WP:RFD (non admin closure). Dustitalk to me 17:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Open Conference Systems

Open Conference Systems (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Odd one, this. The subject of the article is a non-notable software product. I prodded it but another editor insisted on redirecting it to a more general article. Is it notable? Clearly not. So why keep it at all? Original prod is here.

Nomination withdrawn - in the light of the comments below I've changed it to an RfD.andy (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so. I AfDed it because the purpose of the redirect was clearly to contest the prod. andy (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that for sure- they could have contested the PROD without changing the article, by simply removing the tag. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Procedural speedy keep and reopen at RfD Thinboy00 @024, i.e. 23:34, 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 delete, without prejudice to recreation if it's an actual article. - Philippe 21:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fish Heads: Barnes & Barnes' Greatest Hits

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Fish Heads: Barnes & Barnes' Greatest Hits
Fish Heads: Barnes & Barnes' Greatest Hits (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page has no content other than infobox. Hellno2 (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Lack of content isn't a reason to delete, but the album seems not to have been covered in any reliable sources; the AMG link shows no review or cover art. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Rescue? More information on this album here and here, if anyone wants to rescue it. A picture-disc shaped like a fish head! (I've added it to List of picture discs). Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing here that isn't already on Barnes & Barnes or on Fish Heads. But more to the point, nothing here. Mandsford (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but, obviously, expand into a proper article. Given the notability of Barnes & Barnes and its membership, the album should also satisfy notability. No predjudice against re-nominating in a few months if no work is done on it. 23skidoo (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment from nom Even a few referenced sentences being added to this article should be enough to save it from deletion. Without this, however, I still support deletion. Hellno2 (talk) 23:12, 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 non-admin close; nom withdrawn, see below TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Registered Historic Places in Kansas

List of Registered Historic Places in Kansas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Mostly red-linked list. Hellno2 (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The result was withdrawn by nominator. The unanimous concensus is to keep. Hellno2 (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC) (non-admin close)


  • Keep The lists are the complete listing of the Historic Sites for each state. Every name on the list is notable and will eventually have an article. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep FYI, the NRHP places are notable for wikipedia because a) the places have been deemed of historical importance, and b) there is plenty of documentation (verifiability) about each one, specifically for each one there is a NRHP inventory/nomination document available. doncram (talk) 00:07, 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 Delete. -- Longhair\talk 08:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mohgborr

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

Disputed prod. Prod tag read "Non-notable character in a game played by one club." Tag was removed with the comment "Deletion Proposal removed - Isn't this sort of article, and the thought behind it, what helped to spark Wikipedia to begin with?" I agree with the prod - Delete as not notable. Not a single Google hit. Dawn bard (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete -- Please do not delete this article- as a member of the games club referenced on the page, it is here as an article to help our members and to spread ideas to others -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superlative s (talk • contribs) 02:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    Comment - I suggest you read what Wikipedia is not. Cheers! Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Indubitably non-notable. Anturiaethwr (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Completely fails WP:NOTE and WP:FICTION per this [12]. There is no verifiable information that could be used to construct a sound out-of-universe article for this character. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Am I reading this right? An article about a group's D&D experience with a focus on one of the characters? Delete; definitely no notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete we really don't need this Thinboy00 @027, i.e. 23:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, the kind of nonsense that gives Wikipedia a bad name. No notability whatsoever. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per my original PROD, fails WP:N ukexpat (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per all above, particularly Jeremy McCracken. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongest of deletes garbage. Anonymous is absolutely mistaken about what Wikipedia is about too. Junk it, the sooner the better. JuJube (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete It's just a page someone made for something they do. I don't think it should be deleted, as i'm sure the creator(s) seriously want this page up, and it won't bother anyone surfing Wikipedia, since unless they want to find a Mohgborr page, they're not going to find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.36.10 (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    Please see WP:NOHARM. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable, no real potential of being so. Hobit (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete It appears Mohgborr has been reanimated yet again, this time as a Wikipedia article. He really needs to be laid to rest, ASAP. Turn undead! Freederick (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Essentially, this is non-notable fiction passed off as an article in it's current format. Lawrence § t/e 17:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Characters from Gary Gygax's campaign might be notable, an NPC from someone non-notable's non-notable game is, well, not-notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:19, 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 - non-notable self-promotion, clear consensus. KrakatoaKatie 02:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Trusted Advocate

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

A couple of red-link "authors" paid a vanity press (iUniverse) to have this book printed and then came here to self-promote said book with a vanity article that fails WP:BOOK, WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:Single-purpose account, and WP:ADVERT. Article has contained spam links in the past and still contains one. Author was warned here [13] about spamming but continued to spam. Book title kicks up nothing on Google but self-generated sites, blogs, etc.--no reliable sources whatsoever. Clearly, these people think they can use Wikipedia as an advertising and spamming platform for their vanity press book. Let's get rid of it now. Qworty (talk) 22:10, 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 Delete. -- Longhair\talk 08:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Malik Simsek

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

This article looks very reasonable but, upon closer examination, appears to be a hoax. The references don't check out -- they lead to the correct pages, but this individual's name isn't listed where it should be listed. As well, it suggests that this individual's professional football career began at age 13, which is highly unlikely. If someone has more relevant information, I'm prepared to be convinced, but I do think this is just a hoax. I would have deleted it as nonsense, but it's so thoroughly done, I want this gone for good via AfD. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment add a {{hoax}} for good measure. Thinboy00 @030, i.e. 23:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete hoax. No signs any of it is true and some of it is contradicted by sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree that it is likely a hoax as my search on a different search engine also did not turn up any results. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:33, 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. - Philippe 21:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doug Smith (author, columnist)

Doug Smith (author, columnist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was speedied WP:CSD#A7 a week ago and has reappeared with some references, but they are only the subject's own web-site and that of the local paper on which he is a columnist - not enough to establish notability. Probable autobiography - author is an SPA. JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, no independent attribution of notability in article or found during search. Purely WP:LOCAL figure. (Not even the best known Doug Smith connected to the Quad Cities, either.) --Dhartung | Talk 22:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral To me, it would depend upon the notability of the Quad-City Times. I don't want to !vote as I'm having a hard time telling how big the paper is, but it looks too small to warrant an article for a columnist. Agree about the autobio, especially considering the title of the article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • With that in mind, delete, I'd agree that the circulation isn't high enough to demonstrate notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

People are writing in slamming me on Wikipedia. You could write in and refute some of what they are saying.

I've read his articles and they are really well written and humorous. He's definitely only a local or regional personality, but is well known in Iowa and Illinois. The QC Times has an average daily readership of 60,000, but they also get 50K to 70K internet readers on a given day. Remember, population is pretty sparse out in the land of corn! They cover a ten county territory of Iowa and Illinois of 375,000. I may be mistaken, but I thought it was the largest or most productive paper in the entire Lee Enterprise chain. I would disagree about him not being the best known Doug Smith connected to the Quad Cities. There are no other famous Doug Smiths, and the basketball player Dhartung references is not from the Quad Cities. (talk)

  • Comment two paras above added by Forumguy13 (talk · contribs), the author of the article. JohnCD (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A guy who writes for his local paper in a small town is not a notable author and never will be unless he does something truly major, which so far, according to this bio, has never been in the cards for the guy. I mean, he's never even published a book with a major press, right? And there are certainly no WP:RS about him! I say we get rid of this thing. Qworty (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Evidence of WP:AUTO Something smelled really bad about this one, so I started to nose around, and I found that the handle of the guy who created the article, Forumguy13, appears on several collector sites, such as this one [14], in which Forumguy13 identifies himself as "Doug," which is the same name as the guy this article is about, and lo and behold, the article states that he is a collector. So I think this guy wrote the article about himself. Not only that, but he has now shown up in this AfD to defend the article he wrote about himself, behavior which violates WP:COI. I will now go do all of the appropriate tagging. Qworty (talk) 00:55, 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 no consensus to delete, may be redirected or merged at editors' discretion, if there's consensus. Sandstein (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proto-Latvian language

Proto-Latvian language (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have strong doubts about this article, because Lithuanian language is older than Latvian. --Visconsus (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page. ➨ REDVEЯS knows it's gonna happen someday 21:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Does Proto Lithuanian predate Proto Latvian hard to say. Though to state categorically that Proto Lithuanian is the proto langauge of all Baltic states is spurious at best. There is little difference in both these proto languages, both having evolved from the Indo European. Stub should be kept but reworded to remove unsourced and likely Original Research content. Tovian (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Baltic languages. This seems likely original research as well, and in any case if there is sourceable research on reconstructing a protolanguage ancestral to the Baltic language, our coverage in that article could use some major expansion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Our article about the Latvian language says it evolved from the Latgalian language. I don't know, if that makes Latgalian the same as Proto-Latvian, but I would suggest making Proto-Latvian language a redirect to Latgalian language until someone finds some sourced information and possibly makes Proto-Latvian language a separate article again. A redirect to Latvian language might also make sense. We already have a stub about a proto-langauge of all Baltic languages and that's Proto-Baltic language. — Kpalion(talk) 18:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Kpalion. --Visconsus (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete all - fail WP:MUSIC, scant sources. KrakatoaKatie 02:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indy & Wich

Indy & Wich (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails music notability; resources difficult to interpret or verify - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Added related articles:
  • Peneři Strýčka Homeboye
  • La4
  • Orion (band)
  • Delete all per nom and note presence of Orion (band) which also seems related. tomasz. 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not come close to meeting notability guidelines as far as I can tell. --Pleasantville (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all four related articles for failing WP:MUSIC. Qworty (talk) 21:34, 9 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 close after nomination withdrawn. Bduke (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Albanian Wikipedia

See below- doesn't meet CFI and no references whatsoever. Teh Rote (talk) 21:04, 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 close). Dustitalk to me 17:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bengali Wikipedia

I'm nominating Bengali Wikipedia because it is simply not notable enough to be included- I see no references, only one internal link (to the site itself), which doesn't satisfy our CFI. Teh Rote (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. If Samogitian Wikipedia and Quechua Wikipedia are notable, then Bengali Wikipedia certainly is. Furthermore, by my count there are articles on 42 other Wikipedias that have no references; do you intend to delete them all? It's not as though sources were that hard to find (WP:SOFIXIT), considering all the WP editions that 'do' have sources. (Unless you are opposed to Metawiki sources, or non-English ones.) Oh, and the same goes for Albanian Wikipedia, above. Anturiaethwr (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

*Keep. I'm sure it would be a trivial task to find sources for this in the native language. The hard would be to find a translator. The proper thing to do in this case would have been to tag it for citations for at least a few months before bringing it here to give opportunity for improvement. Celarnor Talk to me 23:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    • The article has been without citations since its inception. I think that's long enough. Besides, if it is so easy to find sources for this, why hasn't it been done yet?
    • I quote from Wikipedia:Notability (web):
    • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. I don't see any.
    • The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. The only award I can make out from this article is the rank in the list of Wikipedias, and that doesn't classify as "independant".
    • The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Respected and independent? Maybe a yes, but 2/3 isn't good enough. Our policy is clear, there is simply no reason to keep this. Teh Rote (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. References in reliable sources almost certainly exist. I haven't added any because I don't read Bengali. Try searching for Wikipedia's name in Bengali on the site of any large Bengali-language newspaper and you should find several references. --Eastmain (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Many references exist in local media. In fact, a TV channel in Bangladesh is currently regular weekly features "From Bengali Wikipedia" as a 5 minute episode. Daily Jai Jai Din, Daily Prothom Alo, Daily Ittefaq have all run feature articles on Bengali Wikipedia. Following are some references:
These are the refs, non-trivial media mentions the nominator was looking for, and which I could come up off the top of my head. More can be provided if required. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 01:47, 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 Keep (non admin close). Dustitalk to me 17:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Gabbe

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

Just another academic bureaucrat, failing all of the criteria for WP:PROF. Creator of article has a very aggressive and nasty history of edit warring to remove the notability tags from the article, so let's watch out particularly for any disruptive behavior on the AfD. Qworty (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    • No "nastiness" was intended. I am just someone new to creating wiki articles. My apparent "edit warring" was just lack of experience (removing tags when I thought an issue had been addressed). It took me this long just to figure out how to be part of the discussion! In any case, to the issue: Steven Gabbe is more than a "bureaucrat". He is the Dean of one of the nation's top medical schools, and is a prominent academic and author in his field (obstetrics and gynecology). One of the six notability factors in the link referred to by qworty is a significant and well-known collective body of work (see link). As noted below, he satisfies more than just this one factor.Nafeh9 (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think it's fair to accuse this editor of edit-warring; I see them removing the notability tag exactly once, and that was after the addition of some information. I'll also point out the goofiness of an admin declining an A7 speedy saying that it asserts notability ([16]) and then tagging it with a notability tag three hours later ([17]) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't get what's goofy about it. An article may assert notability, thus escaping WP:CSD#A7), but still fail to prove said notability (e.g. in cases where no inherent notability can be established, through references to non-trivial coverage in reliable sources), which is what the {{notability}} tag requests. Then even if those sources are added, an article might still contain a bunch of unreferenced facts, so it gets a {{refimprove}} tag. And even if all the facts are referenced, there might be synthesis, so it gets a {{original research}} tag. And so forth. cab (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, I see what you mean here, and that is one of the things that's been improved with this article since the speedy. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As Dhartung says, being an elected member of the Institute of Medicine is by itself sufficient to prove notability per WP:PROF. A GoogleScholar search also returns fairly impressive results[18], with top citations of 228 and 135. In my opinion clearly satisfies WP:PROF and should be kept. Nsk92 (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Medline finds 178 publications for "Gabbe SG"[Author], including many in high-impact general medical journals such as NEJM, JAMA & Lancet, as well as high-quality specialist journals such as Obstet Gynecol; these include several invited reviews. Gabbe is first author on a textbook in 5th edition which has been cited 228 times according to Google Scholar, which also finds one article cited 135 times, and a further eight cited over 50 times. (His citations might well be underestimated by Google Scholar as many will be pre-internet.) As well as being dean of a medical school and former research chair, the subject has held several positions in national academic societies and research committees, and is an NAS Institute of Medicine fellow. Clearly meets several criteria of WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The Institute of Medicine by itself, as a branch of US National Academies, is a sufficient criterion of notability. True, we have articles on very few of the members. We should, rather than those MDs who get local publicity for their plastic surgery practices and the like. DGG (talk) 15:02, 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 redirect to Sentosa. No major edits to article since its creation. KrakatoaKatie 02:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sentosa 4D Magix

Sentosa 4D Magix (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Redundant article, mostly duplicates information that is already in Sentosa. Not really notable enough for its own article, mention in the main page on Sentosa covers it fairly well. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:43, 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 Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW (non admin close). Dustitalk to me 17:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jody Kraus

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

Not much to say about it except that notability is not asserted, it completely fails WP:PROF, and it doesn't belong here. Qworty (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No significant achievements mentioned, let alone cited. Anturiaethwr (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. The article has been improved, and now includes notable achievements and publications. Anturiaethwr (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Holding a named chair professorship at a major U.S. university is a pretty reliable indicator of academic notability and of being regarded as a significant expert. In this case he has two named chair appointments at the University of Virginia Law School: Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law and Philosophy and the Albert Clark Tate, Jr. Research Professor. I looked up his web site[19] and it says that he is a member of the American Law Institute. ALI members are elected [20], so being a member is an indicator of notability as well. A search of the AMI membership directory[21] confirms that he is an elected member. Appears to satisfy WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Nsk92, who beat me to this one; also subject has (co)authored or edited three textbooks, with Cambridge University Press and LexisNexis, one of which has reached a 4th edition. Referencing is needed, though. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. When an academic holds a named professorship, there are almost certainly reliable sources to prove that he is notable. --Eastmain (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep No doubt there is a lot of editing to be done to the article. This was my first entry. But any serious cursory inquiry into this professor will reveal more than enough information to satisfy the requirements. IFKC (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Named professorships are an assertion of notability. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 13:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep the article was obviously written from a student perspective, as many such articles are, and does not show the academic notability very well. The publications include one major textbook, in its 4th ed., a research level book on law at Camb. Univ Press, and a similar one on Philosophy, also CUP. (plus the usual articles). DGG (talk) 15:07, 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 Withdrawn. (non admin close) Dustitalk to me 20:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Pulitzer Prize

2008 Pulitzer Prize (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fork of Pulitzer Prize and its many sub-articles. We don't need multiple articles listing the prize winners each year, there is no other article like this for prior years. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is. Speedy keep. Needs to be cleaned up and formatted like the others, but absolutely no reason to delete. Tan | 39 20:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
What "others"? All the prize winners are listed in sub-articles. For example fiction winners are listed at Pulitzer Prize for Fiction.Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you or I missing something? 2007 Pulitzer Prize. 2006 Pulitzer Prize. This goes back to 1917 Pulitzer Prize. Why not have 2008? Tan | 39 20:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Consider:
v • d • e
Pulitzer Prize
2008 · 2007 · 2006 · 2005 · 2004 · 2003 · 2002 · 2001 · 2000 · 1999 · 1998 · 1997 · 1996 · 1995 · 1994 · 1993 · 1992 · 1991 · 1990 · 1989 · 1988 · 1987 · 1986 · 1985 · 1984 · 1983 · 1982 · 1981 · 1980 · 1979 · 1978 · 1977 · 1976 · 1975 · 1974 · 1973 · 1972 · 1971 · 1970 · 1969 · 1968 · 1967 · 1966 · 1965 · 1964 · 1963 · 1962 · 1961 · 1960 · 1959 · 1958 · 1957 · 1956 · 1955 · 1954 · 1953 · 1952 · 1951 · 1950 · 1949 · 1948 · 1947 · 1946 · 1945 · 1944 · 1943 · 1942 · 1941 · 1940 · 1939 · 1938 · 1937 · 1936 · 1935 · 1934 · 1933 · 1932 · 1931 · 1930 · 1929 · 1928 · 1927 · 1926 · 1925 · 1924 · 1923 · 1922 · 1921 · 1920 · 1919 · 1918 · 1917
Cleanup obviously needed.-- Kallahan (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh i see I apologize I did not realize there were two parallel lists going. I will detract this AfD since there is no one else that wants it. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to close out an AfD if someone could please speedy close/keep, thanks, sorry for the trouble. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 20:24, 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 Delete. -- Longhair\talk 08:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mario's Fourth Studio album

Mario's Fourth Studio album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

More pop-music crystal-ballery - I just removed unsourced track names from this article, which leaves... nothing. Mario's most recent album just came out in December 2007, so there are no sources for this supposed upcoming release, except for a Billboard article stating he is "conceptualizing" ideas for his next release. - eo (talk) 19:59, 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 delete. KrakatoaKatie 03:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shandi Sullivan

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

No notability outside of reality show, and she's apparently not pursuing modelling anyore. This article has already been deleted once through the AFD process. See precedents at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayla Rubinelli, another ANTM contestant Dawn bard (talk) 19:23, 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 delete and redirect to demo (music). Useful redirect because the phrase is a relatively common neologism, but the album article has no sources and fails WP:MUSIC. KrakatoaKatie 02:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demo Cassette

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

Non-notable, unreleased album. Fails WP:MUSIC: no substantial coverage provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:10, 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 Redirected to Vulcan (Star Trek). Editors are encouraged to merge as appropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Syrranites

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

I redirected this stub citing WP:RS, WP:WAF, WP:FICT. Another editor has restored the sub citing the same. So, bringing it to the broader community to delete this non-notable, unsourced material. (Note: I don't know if that TV-related embargo is in effect -- if it is, speedy close this and restore the redirect since the embargo calls for 1) no AfDs and 2) no un-doing redirects until resolved.) --EEMIV (talk) 19:07, 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 merge. — brighterorange (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Wii games (North America)

List of Wii games (North America) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list is just redundant of information in List of Wii games. I believe the article was made due to this section: Talk:List_of_Wii_games#Article_size_concern, however many video game lists by platform have double (or more than what the Wii list has). Size isn't a good reason to just split into a new article. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: Bah RobJ, all this nonsense from you! Where's your replies that I wrote on your talk page? Okay, as for the article, the reason why I wanted them in regions is that not all 433 something games are going to come out (it would be at least half), and that would cut down on size dramaticly. IF this article (List of Wii games (North America) gets deleted, you must STOP Zomic13 and the others from making the List of WiiWare games into regional articles (just like your trying to stop me here). See Talk:List of WiiWare games on the last section, and reply to the discussion of improvements page there, and/or on my user talk page. RobJ this was for you, you knew it was coming!! :( Versus22 (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment. It's not nonsense. I had every right to nominate the article. Have some patience. I'm not on Wikipedia every time I get a talk page message! RobJ1981 (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: If he doesn't, I'll nominate them for deletion under the same rationale. Also, this paragraph is essentially OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and ALLORNOTHING which doesn't usually fly at AfDs for the reasons discussed on those sections. Celarnor Talk to me 02:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Continued: ...And one more thing about the List of Wii games I am sick of seeing blank boxes under the region's release date. (saying "Unreleased"). This is why I also created this North American article, to add games that are for sure coming here. The other systems may have more games than the Wii, but the Wii will catch up to them. Anything else? I hope you'll finally agree with me! Versus22 (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The "There will be more in the future" argument is ad nauseam. The fact that there will be more doesn't mean we should split it now. If it becomes unmanagable in the future due to size, that is the time to split it; but that is clearly not the case yet. Regarding the released versus unreleased bit, I don't really see why that's a problem. If it's sure that they're coming out, then it isn't a violation of CRYSTAL or anything. Celarnor Talk to me 02:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Versus22 began making this list as for a while the List of Wii games was not sorting properly due to the vast number of entries contained in it. The problem has now gone, and the table is now sorting properly, so the the North America list isn't needed at this time, but I do not doubt that we will have to very soon split the list by region if we would like to retain the sort function, as this was not the first time the sorting has broken, and it will certainly not be the last. -Digiwrld1 (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Is this a technical problem exclusive to this list and not any of the other platform lists? If so, do you know why it doesn't affect the others? Celarnor Talk to me 03:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: That's very strange the other articles sorts anyways. How & when did it first happen? The way this is going though, I don't think we'll be able to do it for the List of WiiWare games either now because we'll get the exact same results (at least for now). Versus22 (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to User:Versus22 page?: To maybe get it ready for the future? Versus22 (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Gazimoff (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of Wii games. You can easily reproduce the content of this page by sorting on the North America release date there. (Not to mention that this page only has the letter A and is messed up (uncategorized tag inside the table?)). — brighterorange (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: All right, thanks BrighterOrange. I know I'm going to break a rule here on Wikipedia, but lets just end the AfD here. I don't want to wait for 4 more days. Please just go ahead and delete the article (DON'T MERGE IT BECAUSE I COPIED AND PASTE THE INFO FROM List of Wii games ONTO HERE). As for my last comment, I actually don't want this list on my user page after all. Have a good week and I'm sorry for this. Versus22 (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No need to be sorry, you are acting to make the encyclopedia better and we all appreciate that! I'll perform the redirect since it seems everyone is in agreement. — brighterorange (talk) 01:09, 9 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. -- Longhair\talk 08:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From Deep Beneath The Sea EP

From Deep Beneath The Sea EP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album for non-notable band whose corresponding article was speedied twice under A7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:54, 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 boldly redirected to WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009 (non-admin closure) ~ Eóin (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2009

WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2009 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete one-line unsourced nn crystalballism Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:51, 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 Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dee Watkins

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

Delete nn singer/film-maker, article has been tagged for sources and notability since last year, winning a minor award at a film festival even if sourced is insufficient to establish notability per WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:48, 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 Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin G. Summers

Kevin G. Summers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not indicate qualification under Wikipedia:Bio#Creative professionals -- Jeandré, 2008-04-07t18:38z 18:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC), -- Jeandré, 2008-04-07t18:41z

Sorry, I didn't realize that I had to cite the reference right in the article. This is my first time. Kevin G. Summers' works have been cited in several original works (I've added the citations to the article), he was nominated for a Nebula Award, the highest honor for science fiction writers, he's gone beyond just writing Star Trek, and his name and one of his stories came up recently in the debate over whether or not a fan-produced TV series should be nominated for a Nebula Award (http://www.trekunited.com/news/content/view/869/81/) I think he is notable enough for inclusion because of these things. --User:Ahab4ever

Notability requirements for authors from Wikipedia:Bio#Creative professionals:
  • " The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  • The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  • The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
Please cite a source in the article that meets one or more of the above. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-07t20:06z
I can cite several places where his Star Trek stories have been referenced online, such as reviews on Amazon and some other websites, as well as some Star Trek chronologies, but I don't see this information in any of the other listings on Strange New World winners (or anybody else) so I'm not sure how I would include it. I know he's been in at least one Star Trek magazine (an interview), but that is not on the web. After reviewing some other pages, I'm thinking maybe this should be a Star Trek stub. Sorry I'm having a hard time figuring out how to do this. --User:Ahab4ever
  • Delete, while he has been in Star Trek anthologies, there is no evidence any of his works satisfy WP:BK. --Dhartung | Talk 22:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. It just seemed like there are several other Star Trek authors of approximately the same level. I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong here, I thought I was just making an article similar to others that are on the site. I'm not going to spend any more time on this one, so go ahead and pull the plug if you feel that's the right thing to do. --User:Ahab4ever —Preceding comment was added at 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Not your fault Ahab, there are thousands of articles on Wikipedia that aren't notable enough to qualify. The encyclopedists want reliable third party sources to indicate encyclopedic notability, and the inclusionists want articles on almost everyone and everything. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-08t13:18z
Thanks. Go ahead and take the page down, or is that something I should do? --User:Ahab4ever
It'll be deleted in about 2 days. You may want to edit his memory-alpha page which doesn't have all the info this one does. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-10t12:02z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Philippe 21:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] B.C.B.

B.C.B. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This topic appears to be non-notable, and may even be a hoax. I have not been able to find evidence for the existence of any of the cited references, nor was I able to verify a Village Voice reference in a previous version of the article (removed after I questioned it on the talk page). Aleta Sing 18:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A myspace profile is not a reliable source. Aleta Sing 01:53, 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 ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lobbycon

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

This term is a neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.

The proposal to delete was contested. LittleOldMe (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete without prejudice, as non-notable neologism with inadequate sourcing. Note that there is a different neologism vying for this article space: the practice of holding an informal convention in a lobby. Google turns up more hits for this latter meaning than the proposed definition (lobbying at a convention), which only seems to be used in the article's one source. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, far below WP:NEO standards in terms of available sourcing. --Dhartung | Talk 22:30, 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 BOLDY redirected requested below (non admin closure). Dustitalk to me 17:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Urbana Sweet Corn Festival

Urbana Sweet Corn Festival (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has almost no content and no sources. No assertion of notability since Google search returns only 310 hits. Chris! ct 18:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Obvious merge to Urbana, Illinois. Most festivals are not notable on their own, although every city and town has its annual event. 72.151.55.27 (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. --Liempt (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I added some newspaper articles as references and expanded the article a bit. If a festival gets coverage in multiple reliable sources, it ought to be considered notable. I would move the article to Urbana Sweetcorn Festival, though, as the references use this spelling. --Eastmain (talk) 00:49, 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 delete. - Philippe 21:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Henye Meyer

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

This author has published three books, but this doesn't suffice to pass WP:BIO. Google displays mainly book seller's sites, not surprisingly, but I don't see any biographical coverage. PROD was contested with request to list the article on AfD. B. Wolterding (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep I declined the PROD because I found a BBC coverage, what appears to be a review and a short review in a collection of Jewish Books. It may not be enough to keep, but I thought it needed discussion, not a PROD TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Change to delete per DGG's explanation of the lack of library holdings. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 23:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete WorldCat shows only 4 libraries holding each of them. I dont see how that can be possibly notable The BBC material is simply a posting on their blog about her personal experiences. The "short review" is just a listing in a bookdealers catalog, merely analogous to a listing on amazon. And the other article seems to be in "Wisconsin Bookwatch" which doesnt really count for notability. DGG (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per DGG. I'm not finding anything else that would establish notability or could be used to flesh out a bio. Deor (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:11, 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 Non-administrative closing: redirect to notable company - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Double gulp

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

Poor Sourcing, low notability, redundant to 7-Eleven article CredoFromStart talk 18:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


I propose this article be deleted, and the name redirected to 7-Eleven. There's very little content on this page and the only sources come from 7-Eleven's website. In addition the logical (at least to me) main article for Double Gulp would be Big Gulp, which is already redirected to the 7-Eleven article. CredoFromStart talk 18:07, 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 delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adenin TECHNOLOGIES

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

Being named in the Top 100 Companies that Matter doesn't seem to be enoguh to meet notability. User has also created OC Systems which has been speedied several times. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete coverage appears limited to press releases and I don't find evidence to verify the award, even if it's enough for notability. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - of the three cites, the first is reliable, the second is a blog, and the third does not even mention the company. Ghits as noted above do not reveal much more. Is there anything else out there? Bearian (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. - Philippe 21:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shottle railway station

Shottle railway station (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Written by people connected to the railway, no refs or citations, and not a notable station BG7 17:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep: Railway station articles are not excluded from Wikipedia because they are not notable. See Wikipedia:Notability_(Places_and_transportation)#Commuter_rail_services. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes but the station isn't even open, isn't likely to be before 2012, and has no refs, other than from the article's authors book, which isn't reffed at the moment. I can't even verify that as I have seen a copy nowhere.
Open yet is beside the point. The station used to be open (a fact an editor removed just before the AfD nomination). Google searches indicate coverage for the old station. Whatever happens with the reopening effort, notability does not expire. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
BG7 17:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete at least until it's actually open. The lack of refs, and the fact that it hasn't established notability yet would seem to indicate that there's not any reason to keep it.
Note: The link provided above by User:Cobaltbluetony to the policy about the notability of railway stations indicates 1) it's still in the proposed phase and 2) it states that "...many (but not all) of the stations are notable..." I think this fits under the "not all" portion. CredoFromStart talk 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Question is it possible it's operating/being discussed under another name? I ask because I'd expect even a proposed railway station to have more than 9 ghits. That seems unbelievably low. I think there may be more that we're missing which could give context. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, no way. Try the official websites, www.e-v-r.com and www.evra.org.uk. And notice the staion is between Idridgehay (the current terminus) and Duffield, and the "Dash to Duffield is what is being advertised. It won't be open until that is open, and after that at that! (sorry! :P)
BG7 18:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Since my original unbiased penning of the article about the station and its current situation it has been edited to become nothing more than a drum banging exercise for a minor commercial concern. I therefore feel that the article should be deleted or the large number of references to the company removed. --Skeletor2000 (talk) 18:06, 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. - Philippe 21:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of British animation

History of British animation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely OR, reads like an essay or term paper. ukexpat (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

see latest improved version —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecavster (talk • contribs) 17:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep A notable subject and an excellent topic for an encyclopaedia to cover. I cannot believe that reliable sources will be that hard to find. Reduce to a stub as necessary, of course, but we don't need an AfD for that. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, article needs references and significant cleanup. A history will read somewhat like an essay, more than other articles, so the issue is more tone and perhaps some weasel wording. I'm more concerned about obvious lapses of coverage (compare). --Dhartung | Talk 22:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sometimes people mistakes Afd for clean-up. If this article is not good, wikify it, but deletion is not best solution. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Article is badly in need of improvement, especially needing citations, but is a notable topic. Edward321 (talk) 00:16, 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. -- Longhair\talk 08:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deuce (card game)

Deuce (card game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is not notable, and Wikipedia is not for something made up one day. PROD removed by author without comment. JohnCD (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No evidence of notability at all. ~ mazca talk 17:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Burn I hate to tell those "two american boys" who invented the game, but it just isn't notable enough to be covered here. I imagine definitively proving a lack of sources would be very hard considering the prevalence of the word "deuce" in card gaming webpages, but that's irrelevant considering the author admits that the subject is WP:MADEUP. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete if possible, could we IAR speedy this? Thinboy00 @037, i.e. 23:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    I'd agree with this suggestion. Even if this isn't specifically in WP:CSD it's certainly within the 'spirit' of the deletion criteria. ~ mazca talk 18:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. No rules, no resources, nothing of nothing. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per above; Wikipedia is not for things you made up. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:47, 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 redirect to culture jamming. KrakatoaKatie 02:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PropagandArt

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

Not a widely used art or politican term. This article is an orphan and this article has no citations to support any of its claims that this term is used for these things. Beyond the term, there is also an ad company, a song. Again, non-notabile Kingturtle (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Redirect to culture jamming. The term is used but it isn't well-defined enough for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:41, 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. - Philippe 21:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ikki (video game)

Ikki (video game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No references noted for many months, no context of notability ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 16:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: The game has been released in arcades, home console, Wii's high profile virtual console service. And while the Japanese wikipedia page cannot confer notability, it can give us a good idea as to whether or not this is a subject matter that may appear to be notable and can be expanded upon. The Japanese article is substantive [25]. In translating the article (bablefish only)- there is also a mobile java version of the game that was released in 2006. I've updated the article lead and added some references to the article, regarding the virtual console release. I won't update information about the cell phone version of the game until I can find some additional sources AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Gazimoff (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've updated the article to include 5 references. Given the changes, I request that the nominator and those who voted for deletion to again look at the article page to see if the current references adequately establish notability. Thank you. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article has improved greatly (as I hoped it would) since nomination. Notability has improved, though I hope that the English-language links can be found to replace those Japanese-language links. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 08:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
There are currently two English language references. [26], [27] both of which are factually reporting the release of the game to the Virtual Console Service. Additional English language references could be found using the "Farmer's Rebellion" name - though it's a broad term, and a quick search yielded just yielded wikis and roms. I'll search in more detail later. With regard to the Japanese language links, they directly support claims made within the article, and considering the prominent availability of this game in Japan that is to be expected. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand. In regards to WP:EL other language links are acceptable as long as there are no acceptable English links available. I just hope that we can find suitable English links to replace those Japanese links. The Japanese links are fine for now (better than the non-verified wasteland that this article was a few days ago). ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 12:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a notable arcade and console release, just like every other arcade and console release. Notably even without sources. Raphie (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but it is interesting that the KLOV doesn't have an entry for it. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
comment KLOV does have an entry for Boomerang [28]. Listing it as a maze game that was released by sunsoft in 1985. So that matches up. The description is slightly different though. The wiki article simply states the game was known by other names, I've added a cite tag to get further verification that Boomerang is the same as Ikki/Farmers RebellionAtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
comment according to Arcade History, Ikki was released outside Japan as Boomerang and also as Farmer's Rebellion, but the site does not have a page for Boomerang, only a pinball game and an allwin machine of the same name and someone could have taken the information from this page and submitted it to them. So that doesn't confirm anything. Raphie (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep game from a notable publisher for a notable platform. Important enough to make it to virtual console! — brighterorange (talk) 03:54, 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. Fram (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OC Systems

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

This page has been deleted as non-notable a number of times. The account creating it is clearly an employee of some sort and is running all over WP:COI. The page was initially moved to her userspace at User:Amyyaley/OC Systems to give her an attempt to clean it up for recreation, but this user is not aware on how these things work here (uses tildes in the commentspace). Maybe this can be speedied, but given the repetitive nature of this article's creation, I think it's worth considering a discussion, I guess. ju66l3r (talk) 16:38, 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 delete - no reliable sources, no verifiability. KrakatoaKatie 02:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Order of the Dragon Series

Order of the Dragon Series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Book series that fails to establish its notability through reliable sources. All of the external links provided are to freewebs, blogspot, or similar locations that are not reliable. Further, the article fails to clearly demonstrate that the book series is notable. Finally, the author is not notable - and while non-notability is not transitive, that is corroborating evidence that this is not a major fiction series. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 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 in the sense of "not delete." Whether to merge, redirect, rename this article, etc. are editorial decisions outside the scope of AfD. Sandstein (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Median Europe

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

A nonnotable geopolitical neologism. Not enough google hits to establish the meaning of the term. The article is original essay.
(belated vote: ) merge/redirect the referenced discussions about the nessesity of a new geopolitical entity into Central and Eastern Europe, an established term and long existing article. `'Míkka>t 16:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete I strongly urge people to accept and delete this original research article. --Marc KJH (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As per the comments above. Not notable, based on few and outdated sources and mainly original research. JdeJ (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - the article seems to be sourced and documented. Unless the sources turn out to be invalid, misinterpreted or somewhat wrong, calling the content an original research is a far stretch. Btw, Marc, who has been very active in edit wars in articles on geography Europe, was consequently blocked today, as it seems for not keeping the NPOV. Pundit|utter 18:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "seems" is a good word. The only directly relevant reference is from "CENTRE D'ÉTUDE DE L'EUROPE MÉDIANE". The rest is a hodge-podge of peripheral chat. Even with Centre d'etude we don't even know whether "Europe médiane" is "median Europe" or "middle Europe" or "Mitteleuropa" in English parlance. The discussed article is mostly a translation of completely unreferenced french wikipedia article, which is invalid source in many respects. `'Míkka>t 19:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, if it is a question of sources, I'd suggest clarifying it on the "talk page" first - it would be difficult to resolve this in an AfD voting... Pundit|utter 19:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Although there appear to be no English language sources for describing a "Median Europe", I'm persuaded that there are geographers and political scientists in France who have defined a region of the continent as "L'Europe Mediane", and that it's not the same as "Mitteleuropa" or "Central Europe". This would be no less notable than Boswash, and perhaps more so, since I don't know of an organization that publishes studies about that geographical concept. Mandsford (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I fear some have been too eager to write the article to look into what it's actually is saying. Much of the ideas (not research, as there's very little research involved) was outdated already in the sixties. The term was coined immediately after WWII to describe the areas that had been independent before the war but now had fallen, or risked falling, under Soviet dominance. However, already in the late 50s, it was clear that Finland and Greece had remained democratic non-communist states whereas the other states became known as Eastern Europe. So all this article really proposes is an old term once used to describe the former communist countries in Europe. As only one person (Halecki) seems to have included Finland and Greece (in 1950) in the concept, their inclusion borders on original research; we know better now. So all we have here is an article proposing yet another name for Soviet-occupied Europe. That's why the article is unnecessary. JdeJ (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    On the contrary. I find what you write quite interesting. The article, though, should reflect what you have just described. Pundit|utter 21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    The region is not Central Europe (which has different borders and is rather a cultural concept). It is not Soviet-occupied Europe (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus?). Great majority of those states maybe "became known as Eastern Europe" but have never became Eastern European (cultural difference). The article précised why "Central and Eastern Europe" is not a correct term (if it is not clear, please write it on the talk page). On the other hand, post-Soviet, non-Russian states are a specific entity of today's Europe. If any above-mentioned definition is used to define them, it has to be incorrect. From my point of view it's not difficult to list the countries if we base on this criterion (post-communist, non-Russian), but I won't do it until reliable sources are provided (just to avoid original research). Its precise frontiers and sub-regions are differently defined thus I decided to present various options with citations. I think that Halecki should be mentioned as he was one of the first researchers who developed this idea, I have nothing against précising its today's accuracy. Montessquieu (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • delete, regretfully. Insufficient notability of the term and the article is a loosely compiled essay on the sublect of "central/middle/etc. europas". I understand and sympathize the explanations why this term may be useful. But the usage and notability is not sufficiently established. Only 108 unique google hits for "Median Europe", half of which are random irrelevant. What is more, in some sources the French term "Europe mediane" is translated as MittelEuropa and there is not enough evidence that French term is something sufficiently different. "Mitteleuropa" in GErman wikipedia is defined as Belgien, Bosnien und Herzegowina, Dänemark, Deutschland, Frankreich (ohne Französisch-Guyana, Réunion, Martinique und Guadeloupe), Italien, Kroatien, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Malta, Mazedonien, Monaco, Montenegro, Niederlande, Norwegen, Österreich, Polen, San Marino, Schweiz, Schweden, Serbien, Slowakei, Slowenien, Spanien (ohne Kanarische Inseln), Tschechien, Ungarn und Vatikanstadt. Mukadderat (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite, and preferably rename to Europe Mediane. Notability is not language-dependent; if the concept is notable in French, then it's notable. If it isn't clear that the concept is denoted by any existing English term, then it should have its own article. (But better to use the original name than invent an English one.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There are clearly a number of overlapping definitions and terms. This article does a good job of distinguishing them, and the phrase/concept appears often enough that its notable. There is no really exact indisputable English equivalent. -- DGG (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Following comments were lost early in the discussion, as per this edit. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Which bit or bits are original research? Do you speak French? ChessCreator (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - the use by NATO of the term is notable. Any original research should be removed. ChessCreator (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
now back to your regularly scheduled AFD...
  • Weak keep, but possibly move to Europe médiane per Kotniski's suggestion. If kept, the article should better explain what the countries of this region have in common and why they are grouped together. It should also say where and when the term was used. Is it used in contemporary English-language publications or was it only used in French texts in the 1950's, as JdeJ wrote? In the latter case, the term may be still notable, but the article should clearly indicate its limited, and possibly obsolete, use. — Kpalion(talk) 17:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I asked on the talk page to indicate which fragments are "original research", no response until now. The article is footnoted (almost every single phrase). 1950s - it's probably the first research (in English), but at that time it was named "East-Central Europe", the idea is now historical (today, East-Central Europe is often limited Eastern part of Central Europe). Other definitions are from 1990s and 2003. The article might be renamed to "Middle Europe" - two terms are in use and those who like to assess importance of articles by google hits should be satisfied. The term (Middle Europe) was also used by a professor from UK National Defence Minister’s Staff (here) and it's also defined there (page 8). Median/Middle Europe is not Central Europe nor Mitteleuropa, especially on French Wikipedia. Median/Middle Europe is a geopolitical entity, not a cultural one. Montessquieu (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday I added some further readings, one of them ("Borders,Borderlands and Regional development in Median Europe" by N. Popa, Romanian professor of geography) is mentioned on the list of suggested readings in political geography prepared by the Commission on Political Geography (International Geographical Union) (see p. 11-12) Montessquieu (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but Europa Środkowo-Wschodnia is East-Central Europe, not Central and Eastern Europe. I've never heard about Central and Eastern Europe in Polish. Montessquieu (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
pl:Europa Środkowo-Wschodnia translates literaly as Central-East Europe, with Central going first, before Eastern (hence, no Europa Wschodnio-Środkowa).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
"Central and Eastern Europe" is a fixed phrase in English to describe this region (btw, brings 2,6 million hits). I personally have not seen "East-Central Europe" in English, although it does exist (300 hundred hits in google). Pundit|utter 01:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
"East-Central Europe" is commonly used, at least in social sciences (I'm surprised that this might be unclear). Usually "East-Central Europe" is Eastern (post-communist) part of Central Europe (see de:Ostmitteleuropa, there's a map and literature). Middle Europe is East-Central + South-Eastern Europe. "Central and Eastern Europe" is widely used, but it refers to post-Soviet states and often includes Russia. "Europa Środkowowoschodnia" in Polish usually refers to Middle Europe, South-Eastern Europe is almost not used at all (usually by foreign entities as a calque translation from English), see the website of the Institute of East Central Europe in Lublin (Instytut Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej) [29]. It is not Central-East Europe, Polish grammar differs from the English one and the word order is different. Montessquieu (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The term "East Central Europe" is often used by US researchers when talking about states between Germany and Russia (the same like Median/Middle Europe). "East Central Europe" is used to avoid incorrect term "Central and Eastern Europe" which would have to cover Central (with Germany and Austria) and Eastern (with Russia) Europe. See East Central European Center, Columbia University, The East-Central European Studies Program, University of Florida. The history and culture of East-Central Europe (in the German meaning of Ostmitteleuropa) is rather unknown (and neglected) in English-speaking countries partly for linguistic reasons, it's explained here. Montessquieu (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion please see Talk:Central and Eastern Europe#Suggestion of another article. `'Míkka>t 17:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge to East-Central Europe; the NATO-sponsored research cited, which provides almost all the content in this article, uses "Median Europe" only on p. 12, as an off-the-cuff translation of Fernand Braudel's "l'Europe mediane", and otherwise opts for "Middle Europe", a neologism which it explicitly defines in terms very close to Oscar Halecki's "East Central Europe" (again p. 12), the current English term (I hate to do this, but for once: I say this as someone who teaches a university course on "European Identity"). --Paularblaster (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to East-Central Europe; maybe "Ostmitteleuropa" could be mentioned in the article (does the term have its English equivalent?) Montessquieu (talk) 20:24, 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. -- Longhair\talk 08:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second Group Report: The Humane Society of Montgomery County

Second Group Report: The Humane Society of Montgomery County (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod tag removed without comment by the article's creator. I confess I find it hard to tell what exactly this article is trying to get at; it seems to be some sort of first-person report of the results of an investigation, mixed in with some cites about interviewing technique. At any rate, it has NPOV problems, seems to be entirely original research either directly or by synthesis, and is -- and this is the first time I've ever used this word to describe an article at AfD -- "unencyclopedic". I suspect it's a case where Wikipedia is being used as a webhost for someone's school assignment. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:13, 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 Delete. Ty 15:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Moyer

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

Non-notable artist and technique. A google search for "dave moyer" farbelism -wikipedia retrieves 2 hits. Kingturtle (talk) 15:54, 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 Delete --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vox camerata

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

Contested prod. Since no other edits were made to the article, I will repeat the original prod rationale:

This article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability for inclusion: the subject does not seem to have received non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. An online search for sources (including a standard web search and Google News and Books searches) yields mostly trivial, directory-level coverage; what coverage there is seems to come mostly from personal blogs and forums, which do not qualify as reliable sources.

Black Falcon (Talk) 15:49, 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. Nom has withdrawn. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mosto Mostapha Bousmina

Mosto Mostapha Bousmina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. A google search for "Mosto Mostapha Bousmina" -wikipedia retrieves six hits, none of which do much to support the claims of the article. Kingturtle (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As Dhartung suggests, it is probably a good idea to rename the article Mosto Bousmina. Nsk92 (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdraw - wow, you all did great work! nicely done. Kingturtle (talk) 02:30, 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 Delete. -- Longhair\talk 08:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Callousness

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

contested prod; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Michael WhiteT·C 15:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete I hate saying "per nom" but it really doesn't get much simpler than this. -Verdatum (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ditto. `'Míkka>t 16:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ditto. JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ditto. This will be snowed soon. Harland1 (t/c) 18:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't think this needs to be discussed for 5 days. Delete and Close. --Pmedema (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete That's the way it is. RC-0722 247.5/1 19:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm melting!!! - oh, sorry, I imagined for a moment that I was a snowball in hell. This article is nothing more than a WP:DICDEF. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:28, 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 delete. There is insufficient notability demonstrated for inclusion.. - Philippe 23:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Melissa Galt

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

Does not establish notability with reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Content can be summarized in one line in each of the articles on Frank Lloyd Wright (section on family) and Anne Baxter (section on personal life). Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Reconsider, still delete - I was also asked to take a second look based on additions to the article. I still maintain that Galt is notable enough for a mention in each of her relatives' articles, using the Tribune source. I also believe her knack for getting her name mentioned in so many places may eventually lead to her actually meeting the notability requirements, so I wouldn't be surprised if over time there is enough for an article, but not today with what has been provided. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP I believe the references to be legitimate and valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surftrip (talk • contribs) 20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP I have read many of your edits and your discussion page. seems the only time you even bothered to come Wiki is to make sure this article doesn't make it and I actually feel like you are shadowing me on here. I feel this particular article is notable and I have said as much on your home page. Artsojourner (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I am sorry if I come across as aggravated but I would not have spent as many hours putting this together if it was just going to be wasted. Your last 7 edits over the last 4 days were only for this article.
Dont you see that Galt is the brunt of the American Media? Once a source gets wind that she is related to all these famous people they run with that. This is a commodity to a writer trying to draw more readership. This famous stuff gets attention and mainly draws the attention away from Galt herself. She has a published author, a radio show personality and numerous articles clutter the airways. Also, she is usually the keynote speaker in many of these venues and yes the other people who speak at these venues may not be famous or have a Wiki article about them but they aren't the dadgum keynote speaker now are they? Give Galt a break. She bylines in airlines brochures. What more do you want? Artsojourner (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Well cited, notability established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CredoFromStart (talk • contribs) 18:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability is not established, and most of the sources have nothing to do with notability. I'm not really seeing any coverage in secondary sources other than what is in the article now. Six of the sources simply point out that Galt has degrees and is a member of professional associations. Two establish that she is a certified life coach and a member of a speakers' bureau. Two establish that she has famous family members including her mother. Literally none of those 10 sources does anything to establish notability (which is not inherited, incidentally). The only coverage in a secondary source is the Chicago Trib article, but that is extremely trivial coverage as the article only mentions Galt briefly along with half a dozen other people. Our notability guidelines at WP:BIO note that "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." That is the case here - the coverage is secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability and thus we should delete the article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Just pointing out that I, like others, was asked by Artsojourner to reconsider my delete vote after some changes were made. I have and I stand by view, which has been bolstered somewhat by DGG's comment below. Galt has some vague notability, but not enough to warrant a Wiki article as far as I'm concerned.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep appears notable as a designer, relationship to FLW is a bonus. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Neutral I don't follow all of what DGG mentioned below but I believe he has a valid point and knows what he's talking about re: the books. That said, there appears to be a possible hint of coverage in the award that I haven't seen disproven and we don't know if it's notable so I'm going neutral TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 00:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • There are more sources than I noted, should have searched more carefully, but in all of these GNews archive stories I see only two stories (both in the local Atlanta paper) that seem to go beyond briefly quoting or vaguely mentioning Galt. One of those stories seems to be more about the fact that Wright was her grandfather and another that Baxter was her mother (i.e. the stories are just as much or more about Wright and Baxter). As HokieRNB notes, the relationship to FLW or Baxter does nothing to advance notability. So I see more trivial coverage, but still not enough to pass the notability bar (it's getting closer though).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:N, both the Google hits and the relationship to FLW are meaningless. As a "creative professional", this person is not regarded as an important figure, is not widely cited, is not known for originating a significant new concept, has not created a well-known work, and has not been the subject of an independent book, film, or multiple articles. What aspect of the notability guidelines is being asserted? HokieRNB (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • These? " Lifestyle designer Melissa Galt, whose work has appeared in magazines including Southern Living and Better Homes & Gardens" source, " Top honors went to home designer Melissa Galt, owner of Linea Interior Design Inc. in Atlanta. T" (source), as a keynote speaker, "In her keynote address, national speaker Melissa Galt will encourage personal development, as will the remaining breakout sessions" (source). How's that for a start? TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment - I didn't see any of those referenced in the article on Galt. Are these really what would pass for substantive, non-trivial coverage by reliable, independent sources? HokieRNB (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Response they don't need to be in the article to establish notability, they need to exist, and be added. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Winning an award at an Atlanta Home Show is hardly notable, nor is speaking at a non-notable conference. Multiple examples of her work in Southern Living and Better Homes & Gardens might be enough to establish notability, depending on the context.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
        • It's a win, that she got reliable source coverage of, per WP:N, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. * "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.[1] Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.[2] TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I've won awards - many people have. It's not uncommon for those awards to be mentioned in local media. That award does not add anything to her notability, and I can't even get a hold of the original article on Nexis to see what she actually won. There are more articles not in the Google News archives which are in the Nexis database which could add to the notability of this person. Most are rather trivial mentions though. Galt seems to be fairly effective at getting her name in print, albeit usually briefly. The issue in the notability policy you cite Travellingcari is significant coverage. In the last 20 years there seem to be several dozen articles which mention Galt (again this from Nexis). A significant number are talking about her mother, great-grandfather, or godmother (Edith Head - those stories go back to the 1980s); most give only cursory mention to Galt or her work, and a handful of brief pieces (basically published in Atlanta) discuss Galt and her work in some detail. A lot of the stuff in print reads more like adverts for Galt and her company (thinly disguised as news, as is often the case in style sections of papers) so I'm still not sure that she has received enough significant coverage, though I'm more on the fence at this point.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP She may be related to famous people but that seems to be secondary here.I suppose if I were Anne Baxter's daughter I would have to let others know. I just read that she did a by-line for one of the major airlines for May. I think Continental. OneMarkus (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I am reading the discussions on this article and I see quite a bit of notability here and sure more to come. OneMarkus (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Looks like she could pass notability, but I don't really see it yet. There's a lot of arguably self-promotional name-checking in the news, but not much that constitutes substantial coverage. --Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment We read that Galt speaks nationally on topics such as "Designing a Signature Life," "Don't Wait for a Mate, Feather Your Nest Now!" and "Designing a Signature Lifestyle." To which my one-word reaction is "Yuk!" Not that I blame Galt, who's as entitled as any of us to make a buck, but rather the paying booboisie. Oh, right, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ¶ Well, above we read of various claims for notability. So go ahead and insert them; I'll decide then. -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Weak delete' changed to Delete,see below for explanation. what is asserted is not notable. But how we are to actually decide this for careers like hers' except by personal impressions, is something I dod not know. The rule that 2 RS is enough makes sense only if the RS s are to something that is actually significant. DGG (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. With respect to her, she's not really significant. Now, had she been the daughter of John Gault, then......... (I know, I know). Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bigtimepeace. -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Dont you see that Galt is the brunt of the American Media? Once a source gets wind that she is related to all these famous people they run with that. This is a commodity to a writer trying to draw more readership. This famous stuff gets attention and mainly draws the attention away from Galt herself. She has a published author, a radio show personality and numerous articles clutter the airways. Also, she is usually the keynote speaker in many of these venues and yes the other people who speak at these venues may not be famous or have a Wiki article about them but they aren't the dadgum keynote speaker now are they? Give Galt a break. She bylines in airlines brochures. What more do you want? This is reaaded down here from the top for better readability. Artsojourner (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
unfortunately, as I explain below, not even the media were fooled--the Tribune article almost totally ignores her. And what you say here cannot be verified: I see 2 keynote speeches, not many; I see one weekly podcast, not cluttering the airwaves. .DGG (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a novelty to me: posting a paragraph at the top and bottom of a thread for extra effect. So you say that being related to famous people helps her draw more readership but draws attention away from her. You've lost me right there, I fear. Just what are these venues at which she's the keynote speaker? Do these keynote speeches attract any particular attention? Is she a "lifestyle coach" or a "life coach" and what does either mean and who is Marcia Wieder (or Weider)? If Melissa Galt is "where life comes together", what the hell does that mean? At least one friend of mine -- he gave me his old pushbike (thanks, John!) -- has a byline in airline magazines; should I write an article about him too? -- Hoary (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I have addressed this issue on your page. I realized after I added it that it felt lost at the top and didn't feel it appropriate to delete it at the top so I added it to the bottom. This was NOT for extra effect so please don't assume this add in a negative way here. Artsojourner (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, Changed to delete from weak delete. I was asked to re-evaluate, so I took a more careful look. What is asserted: 1/ she taught courses in what looks to be the extension program at Emory--"Change Your Interiors, Change Your Life" is not part of an academic program. 2/ She was trained a a "life-style coach" by someone who in turn claims herself as an expert in a self-written bio in a conference program 3/she's given self-help lectures at various venues in various states and is listed as giving such lectures by a speakers bureau. Further, two individual ones of them were keynote lectures at meetings claimed without evidence to be important. 4/she's a member of a number of trade associations 5/she does a weekly podcast 6/she published 2 articles in trade publications. 7/ 3 books are mentioned: a/ I can not find the first book in any library catalog, just in amazon. b/the second is a book about 49 interior decorators in 180 pages. she is one of them Only 8 libraries have it. It's about Georgia, but only one of them is in Georgia. c/the third is also only as one of numerous people included--a vanity publisher & again, almost no library has it. has 8/she's included as having contributed 2 one-sentence quotes to an article in the Chicago Tribune about descendants of Frank Lloyd Wright. "Being a nonconformist," sourced there, is what she is reported saying about the family fort he two sentences she is quoted in the long article, not what anyone says about her. The article says nothing about except that she's an interior decorator, while it talks at some length about other members of the family. In short, this is an elaborate article about no notability. Having two non-notable careers--or even more--does not make someone notable. DGG (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, Changed to delete from weak delete. I too was asked to re-evaluate, so I also had a more careful look. DGG's comments fairly evaluate the person/article so I see no need to make a further list. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. - Philippe 23:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cureheads

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

This article was prodded and prod2'd several weeks ago and the prods (and cleanup tags) were deleted by an IP promising to improve the article. That was over two weeks ago and nothing has changed. The article's main issues are questionable notability and a total lack of references and consequent lack of verifiability. The only claim to notability I can see that would possibly meet WP:MUSIC guidelines is that one of the members of the Cureheads was once a member of Nosferatu. Nosferatu were somewhat successful, according to their article, selling a combined 100,000 albums, but that is not nearly enough notability to be transitive through one of its members. To me, Nosferatu seems marginally notable; Cureheads, far less so. Further damning is the lack of any references at all. I checked Google to see what I could find and there were a number of ghits but they are MySpace, YouTube, Yahoo groups, blogs and so forth--nothing that would meet WP:RS. More telling is the Google news search which yields a big ol' goose-egg. Without references to back up even its flimsy claims of notability, I say delete per WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:MUSIC. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 15:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The article has been changed slightly, but I still don't see it meeting inclusion guidelines. Two references have been added, but they both point to other Wikipedia articles which does not meet WP:RS guidelines for sources. Even if they did meet WP:RS, the lack of any news coverage (at least that I could find) makes it very unlikely that this article could ever establish a sufficient degree of notability. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 21:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - also for promotional reasons, with heavy conflict of interest. Investigation into the edit history of this article, and viewing of certain talk page posts pertaining to this and a recently AfDed article Amerikafka (AfD) (a music album related to one of the band members), reveals that both articles were constructed with a promotional train of thought by those directly involved with the band to which this article refers. I stood by as a prod was removed from this article recently, a promise being made at the time that the article would be brought "up to scratch", re: policies and guidelines, if the article were left alone. No such improvements have been made. Ref (chew)(do) 19:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 23:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

KEEP! This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries. Here: The lead singer was subject to a channel 5 documentry The Worlds worst boss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.219.164 (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I'm afraid the article currently does not include anything of the kind. It is no good you telling us what the sources might be in an AfD - they need to go in the article. YouTube is not a reliable source, by the way - what is it supposed to prove? They exist, so yes it proves that. But to be notable requires a bit more than mere existence. Ref (chew)(do) 20:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The original video clip is from world selling brand of TV show called "World's Worst" This brand is translated into several different languages and IS a documentary. The brand is owned by Quentin Wilson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.219.164 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
And what does that have to do with anything? How is that proving notability? We want websites of decent repute telling us (in words, not video, preferably) that Cureheads are the latest craze, are mentioned as widely as possible as being special, and we want those websites to illustrate why. Then we can include those sources in Wikipedia, and hey presto! the article links to sources which prove the notability of the subject of the article. Your comments certainly do not act as a reliable source - it needs to go in the article. And video is not the natural medium for Wikipedia - it is primarily read, not watched like a TV show. Ref (chew)(do) 20:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I leave your world to you angry man. maybe you try to edit Frendh site sometime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.219.164 (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The above linked show isn't about the Cureheads; it just has band members in it. That is an important distinction. As I have pointed out on other AfDs, I have appeared on the front page of a major newspaper and been interviewed on a major news broadcast, but I am not notable; I just happened to be a witness to something that was. In other words, simply appearing in a thing is different from it being about you. The band is in this, it's not about them. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but you are very much wrong. The documentary was directly about The Cureheads and the way that they have chosen to be managed. It even showed two of the mebers in a reality TV situation on a survival course. There were lots and many talks about The Cureheads. Anyway, if it was you that edited the page all niceness now, please accpt my thanks. I will know what I am supposed to do do now on other edtings. Though I really dont want to meet some of these peoples who get so angry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.219.164 (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it was me who edited the article, to get it into some kind of shape which is acceptable to Wikipedia. It does not mean that it won't possibly be deleted, but at least it is more of an article than it was. You unfortunately mistake neutral discussion for anger. No-one is angry here - if they are, they don't stay very long. Ref (chew)(do) 22:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have seen an episode of the show Worlds Worst Boss once before; it is emphatically not a documentary. It's pop TV. It's entertainment; it's not documentary in nature and doesn't claim to be. Besides, anyone can be on the show including total unknowns. If you're an apprentice plumber and you think your boss is a jerk, you can nominate them and they may appear on the show. The appearance of the Cureheads on this show does not, by any stretch of the imagination, constitute notability regardless of how one chooses to define the band appearing on a show versus a show being about the band. Such an appearance simply doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. At least, that's how I see it and experience tells me most other editors will probably agree. By the way, I don't think anyone here is angry about any of this. I, at least, am not, so I hope I'm not coming across as hostile. Despite our difference of opinion, I have nothing but Wikilove for you so please, don't take any of this personally. Cheers! OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 22:51, 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 redirect to Bone_Thugs-n-Harmony#Faces_Of_Death. - Philippe 23:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Faces of Death (album)

Faces of Death (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Non-notable bootleg. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:32, 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. -- Longhair\talk 09:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forever Slave

Forever Slave (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
Alice's Inferno (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Tales for Bad Girls (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep -- Last.fm shows almost 5,000 listeners, and currently touring with Kamelot.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete They have two albums out, but no evidence that they're on notable labels. (Last.fm plays are usually immaterial in my book, as that's not a reliable source.) I say only a weak delete because there is still a chance they might meet some criterion of WP:MUSIC, it's just not looking too good right now. (I also added the albums to this discussion.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Where is the point? The last deletion was a mistake. Forever Slave has a regular record deal since 2005 with Armageddon Music/Wacken Records (same company under new name). This is the label of the Wacken Open Air organizers. Forever Slave has 2 full albums. It is known in Spain, France and Germany, did several tours, played on festivals. So... where is the point? Hybscher (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agrees totally with Hyscher. Don't see the point in deleting. They're pretty famous, especially in Spain. They're touring with Kamelot all over Europe right now. - Aki (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, I believe they just scrape through on WP:MUSIC#C4 and WP:MUSIC#C5. Not to say the article doesn't need a hell of a lot more references though.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 23:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. All the above reasons. Some honors for Alice's Inferno: " + Top 9 - French Underclass (label company) Sales charts; + Top 19 in Sales charts by Heavy Rock; + Top 27 Sales charts in Tipo (Spain)." Also received album of the month in Metal Hammer (Spain)[30]. Forever Slave is under Wacken Records which is Armageddon. This label company works with SPV (important label) for music distribution [31]. Violaillyria (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Could pass Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. due their tour with Kamelot (replacing Visions of Atlantis if I recall correctly). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    By the way, the article should go to a deletion review, since all the history is lost. If it does not, I will restore the history and do a history merge if indeed consensus is to keep it. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I will perform the history merge myself, once this AFD is closed as keep. (Make sure to nudge me about this, or I'll forget. Thank you) Rudget (review) 16:28, 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 Speedy delete as a copyright violation of http://www.1015jamz.com/. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kid and Ruben

Kid and Ruben (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: Personal essay. Not encyclopedic article. Should be deleted per WP:NOT#OR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:05, 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 Speedily deleted (a7). Article made no assertions of notability or importance. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emma Starr

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

No independent reliable sources to establish notability under WP:BIO. hotwifeblog.com is a promotional blog. Doesn't seem to fit the specific notability criteria of pornographic actresses either. Vinh1313 (talk) 14:29, 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 Speedy delete (a7). Article did not assert or indicate notability or importance.- CobaltBlueTony™ talk

[edit] Ronald Peret

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

Non-notable. There are no independent sources. Ronald peret (talk • contribs • count)'s self-promotion [32]. See: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Ronald Peret Tosqueira (talk) 14:23, 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 Redirected to Metroid Prime by Ebelular also the nom agreed that a redirect would be acceptable, so considering that the redirect has already been acted upon I believe that it is acceptable to close this early; non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tallon

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

no autobiography allowed – i123Pie biocontribs 14:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Wouldn't it be better to simply restore the article to the January 28 version (which was a redirect to Metroid Prime, and the last edit before the ip wrote his "autobiography")? TonyBallioni (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I suppose, but the admin should decide on that. – i123Pie biocontribs 14:43, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Article now demonstrates notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Melting of Maggie Bean

The Melting of Maggie Bean (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable book by non-notable author - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete this book fails WP:BK and as such does not merit inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no coverage in independent sources, per WP:BK.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Keep per multiple sources -- when I Googled before, the School Library Journal ref was the only one I found, hence not "multiple".--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No coverage in reliable sources; author is a red link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Le Grande Roi de Whatchamacallit, seems to have been covered in multiple sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fails WP:BK. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand using reliable sources, i.e. reviews, which definitely exist. If an article does not have sources, Wikipedia:SOFIXIT and add the sources. It takes the same amount of time and energy as starting or participating in an AfD. I did a search on Academic Search Complete and found such reliable schorly reviews as The Melting of Maggie Bean. By: Zaneski, Robyn. School Library Journal, Jul2007, Vol. 53 Issue 7, p109-109, 1/8p; (AN 25660166). Plus, the article is but a few days old. We should Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Only 62 results from your dogpile search, and many of them are not directly related to this book. Others are links to Amazon.com. One scholarly review does not automatically make the book notable. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • School Library Journal is not a scholarly journal, but rather a review journal focused at purchasers from schools and libraries. I note that a positive review there -- they are notoriously picky -- suggests that there are likely other reviews from e.g. Hornbook and Publishers Weekly, which are not readily Googlable. More research is needed. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I checked Publishers Weekly but I could only find two one-line mentions: [33] [34] I also used Google to search Horn Book Magazine (I find their built-in search engine nigh on unsuable, so this is normally how I find articles on there) but it produced no results. So I'm afraid those particular sites don't actually have anything at all. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • It's a start and it shows that the previous claims of "No coverage" was inaccurate. I did a search on Academic Search Complete and Dogpile.com, I'm sure there are other sites we can explore as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I've found the online copy of the School Library Journal review: [35] It has also been reviewed in Entertainment Weekly If you take "multiple" to mean "more than one" (which Dictionary.com does) then these alone mean it satisfies the "multiple, non-trivial, independent reliable sources" criteria set out in WP:BK. There are also a couple of slightly less unimpeachable sources: Teens Read Too One Book Two Book Oh, and the current lack of an article on the author shouldn't have a bearing on this discussion.-- KittyRainbow (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Seems to be adequately covered in reliable, independent secondary sources. Kinston eagle (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Has been noticed and reviewed by multiple independent sources, thus passing WP:BK. Good job, KittyRainbow! —Quasirandom (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BK & the demonstrable lack of notability per the sources adduced above by Pumpkin. Eusebeus (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Please make some effort to be serious in these discussions. Multiple independent and published sources clearly indicate notability as practically everyone else in this discussion has acknowledged even those who initially argued to delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Coverage by multiple reliable and verifiable sources satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Further Comment I found another review and two more places where the author discusses the book, and I've used to them to expand the reception and development sections to give the article more real-world content. (This is what the article looks like now) -- KittyRainbow (talk) 18:15, 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 keep per absence of "delete" preferences (non-admin closure). Consensus to merge is to be established on the talkpage, not at Afd. Skomorokh 19:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blue & Gold

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

Does not belong in an encyclopedia Bugbox (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak keep while this is a poorly written article that clearly needs referencing to establish notability; I would say that for now it should be kept and tagged appropriately. Earthdirt (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
On second thought Delete if this is the best that can be done since 2005 it should be deleted, and the second external link doesn't even lead to anything about the article. If someone sources it better to establish notability I will change my vote back.Earthdirt (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral: While I agree that it's unlikely a high school newspaper can pass the bar, I'd really prefer nom offer some valid policy ground for deletion. "Does not belong in an encyclopedia" isn't one.  RGTraynor  15:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per multiple awards in multiple years -- here, for example.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Mergeto the article about the school. I don't see any need for a separate article. Even if kept here, it would need a different title. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to the Taipei American School article. The article doesn't mention the circulation of the paper (i.e., number of copies sold), although school newspapers generally do not have a significant circulation, even in comparison to a small town weekly. Quote me in the next issue of B & G as a jerk, but I'm sorry, no matter how many awards a school newspaper has won, it geenrally is not notable apart from the school that subsidizes it. Mandsford (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge A minimum standard should be winning one of the major awards at National Pacemaker Awards. Even so, there are several in each category each year. Merely a finalist is much too broad, as are the minor awards. DGG (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I would agree with Merge to school page.Earthdirt (talk) 01:50, 12 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 - Withdrawn by nominator, non-admin close. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 18:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cohen

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

The disambiguation page Cohen is not in compliance with Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial_title_matches, in particular: "Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title ... Disambiguation pages are not search indices." Therefore, all the references from Cha Cha Cohen to Cohen designation have to go. All of the remaining references (now listed under "see also"), which include several spelling variants of the name, the religious concept of Kohen, and the fictional character Cohen the Barbarian, are verbosely included in the article Cohen (surname). So the disambiguation page is completely redundant and should be deleted; afterwards, Cohen (surname) should be moved to Cohen. -- 790 (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Cohen (surname) ukexpat (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Delete - On second thoughts, per nom, and then redirect Cohen (surname) to Cohen  – ukexpat (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I've never understood that guideline about "partial title matches". I've found broad disambiguation pages like this extremely useful when I only have a vague idea what some concept or object is actually called. Plus, many of these things would be buried in Wikipedia's search results. Usability trumps all: keep. Zagalejo^^^ 16:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Lots of disambiguation pages list persons whose surname is the page title, along with various other senses of the word. If it is proposed to delete all of them, the AfD nomination should make that clear. If it is proposed to delete only this one, then why only this one? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I was reading up on the concept of Kohen when I came about the Cohen page, and it struck me that it reverses the usual use of disambiguation main part and "see also" section. Then I read up on en.WP disambiguation page guidelines and found this page in violation, as well as being redundant (as explained). I haven't had the time to look at all disambiguation pages on en.WP, let alone list all for deletion that are not in compliance with guidelines. If you have any further questions about my motives, feel free to express them, but I would like to encourage you to re-read WP:AGF before. -- 790 (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Very useful information. If the guidelines for disambiguation pages discourage such lists, remove the disambiguation template and call it an article. The template used to describe in plain English what a "disambiguation page" is: an aid to finding the right article. Cohen does that well. Fg2 (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think with this edit the main problem has been taken care of, so I have no further objections against keeping the article. -- 790 (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - with the edit referred to by User:790, I change my position. – ukexpat (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that I don't keep up the request, how to end this? -- 790 (talk) 23:48, 9 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. Sandstein (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flaccid

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary, previous prod template was removed without any given reason. The article was transwikied to wikitionary after my prod concerns. ImperviusXR (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment the main part of the article that is not just a definition is simply telling the reader what body parts "flaccid" can be applied to, and is mostly unsourced. If kept, i think this article would need to be rewritten, and perhaps expanded in order to provide sufficient depth and to avoid phraseology such as "Is it firm, flaccid... or contracted?" which, as a question, does not appear to be relevant to the article. ImperviusXR (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete At the moment it is essentially a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedic entry. Johnthepcson 18:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as a wikitionary entry. No content beyond definition. CredoFromStart talk 18:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This is merely a definition, and it could easily be merged with another page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishistheice (talk • contribs) 23:36, 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 speedy keep per withdrawn nomination and lack of delete preferences (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 19:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of characters in Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of characters in Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire Articles for deletion/List of characters in Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire (2nd nomination)
List of characters in Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is being used by the webmaster of the comic as a webpage supplement to the comic (http://www.dominic-deegan.com links directly to the article), in violation of WP:NOT#WEBHOST. Article also fails to assert real-world notability WP:N#, and is in violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well. McJeff (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Neutral: I dunno. This is a webcomic that's cracked the top twenty in readership by some measures [36]. Is this list any more inappropriate than the many similar character lists for other fictional works?  RGTraynor  16:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral: Merge with Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire. Of the nominators criteria IMO only WP:N warrants an Afd although I have some sympathy with the WP:INDISCRIMINATE claim. Article can be cleaned up, but I can't find any decent references, hence merge it. ChessCreator (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • comment - if we can get a couple good sources, I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination. McJeff (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • WITHDRAW NOMINATION: It seems to me there is no consensus for deletion, and a merge won't solve any of the problems the article has. It's still a mess but I think it's more important to improve it. I also think that WP:FICT may justify keeping the article. McJeff (talk) 01:01, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Munro Chambers

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

This article as it stands is obviously a mess, which is beside the point, but for the time being I think this person fails our notability guidelines per WP:BIO. Subject has had parts in films and television per IMDB, but our notability guidelines for biographies state that a person "is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." A Google search does not reveal any secondary sources discussing this subject. Thus there is little we can do to clean up the current article using reliable sources and as a result it should be deleted until the subject achieves sufficient notability. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong delete. Fails WP:NOTE. No valid refs. Article as written not worthy of rewrite. I say bin it. --New Kind Of Grey (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no valid refs. A few small roles in random movies do not a notable actor make --AW (talk) 15:06, 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 as failing WP:CORP and as copyright violation. KrakatoaKatie 08:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noesis Innovative Technologies

Noesis Innovative Technologies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete -- only 8 ghits for "Noesis Innovative" and 24 ghits for vWEB2.0, and most of those are just because the software was used on that page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wafulz. Non-admin close. Xymmax (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Howard Johnson Experience (band)

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

Fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BAND. Anthony Rupert (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: Second nomination? the first nomination doesn't exist: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Howard Johnson Experience (band). <-- See? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A7, no assertation of notability whatsoever. So tagged. I hope they named themselves after the nearly-extinct restaurant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Alberta Alberta

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] …And in Closing

…And in Closing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable release (demo). No reliable sources are available for the band or the tape itself. No critical commentary exists. There are no reliable sources that confirm it was ever actually released. The only notable aspect of the tape is Matthew Good's involvement, but there are no sources to confirm the details of his involvement. (Per WP:MUSIC.) ChrisB (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page for identical reasons:

Sleep demo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

-- ChrisB (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete Per WP:MUSIC, demo tapes are inherently non-notable. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 01:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

These demos are well-known within the Matthew Good fan community and deserve recognition as releases. There are few sources with which to cite these early demos because Matthew Good himself has only recently started to acknowledge their existence. Previously, he denied them ever having existed to dissuade people from purchasing them illegally from a former bandmate who released them on a 2-disc set without permission. The law-suit has been settled in favour of Good and he has even offered up a few mp3s from these old demos up on his website. They are also notable because they represent his earlier folk-based roots, to which he has returned on his more recent solo endeavors (see Hospital Music).


The Foo Fighters' first demo Pocketwatch (album), had the same story up until a few years ago when they decided to include a reference to it on their official site. Simply because an artist does not wish to acknowledge their earlier roots does not mean that the rest of us have to deny any record of them. Leave them up. Please. - Haircut-Rabbit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haircut-Rabbit (talk • contribs) 18:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Pocketwatch is a bad comparison. Unlike all of Good's demos, Pocketwatch was released on an actual label, Simple Machines. Furthermore, the tape has been repeatedly mentioned in sources that recount the history of the Foo Fighters. There was no need to wait for it to be mentioned on the official site - it could have had its own article regardless.
We're also not saying that the demos can't be mentioned in other articles, eg Matt's or the discographies (which should be merged, btw). They just aren't notable enough to deserve their own articles. -- ChrisB (talk) 01:20, 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 Withdrawn (non admin close). Dustitalk to me 18:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wodzionka

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

wikipedia is not a dictionary. Only contributor states they will not be able to contribute to expanding article beyond a simple definition for sometime therefore tagging as inuse or underconstruction is not appropriate Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a Dictionary. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -- contributor states that he'll be able to come back to it in about a month. If nobody expands it, prod it then.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep There is no deadline. Dictionary definition is appropriate for a stub article if it is indeed a notable dish. So long as information exists to make a better article, that is sufficient reason to keep the article around. That being said, I'm having some trouble finding reliable information about the dish (under either Wodzionka or brołtzupa) via a cursory Google search. -Verdatum (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Behaviour by User:Jasynnash2 is parody. LUCPOL (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I was trying to help the author. I had the feeling that someone was going to nominate the article for a speedy delete or would redirect it. I therefore commented on the talk page hoping to be of use. Conversation about "deadlines" are on the talk page and included in the tags I mentioned to the articles creator. I brought the "article" here out of good faith so that the merits and policies could be addressed. I had already done searches to try and ascertain notability, etc and found nothing. LUCPOL, please explain to me what you mean by parody? On my talkpage may be the more appropriate place for that by the way. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WITHDRAWN? Not sure how to do this but, I'd like to withdraw the nom. I finally made it to page 10 of google and found a couple of things I'm in the middle of "pirating" without copyvio in order to help get the article out of definition only stage. I'd still like an explanation for the "parody" comment though. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:56, 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 keep per WP:N. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rock is Dead (tour)

Rock is Dead (tour) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Marilyn Manson is notable, but why Wikipedia needs this listing of tour dates is unclear to me. It seems to violate WP:NOT (directory, statistics). B. Wolterding (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete There is generally a one to one relationship between tours and albums. I'd say merge with Mechanical Animals, but I don't see any content that would improve the album article other than mentioning the name of the tour. -Verdatum (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up : Concerts tours by a notable artist are generally notable. But this article needs references, and other sections such as "critical reception", "commercial success"... for example, instead of just having the listing of tour dates. Europe22 (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply Generally notable? According to what? Notability needs to be established first through reliable sources, and then use those sources to create the article. I call into question the fact that independent third party reliable sources exist that can provide any content beyond what can be mentioned in the Mechanical Animals article. -Verdatum (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment : I am not familiar with this article, but I'm pretty sure that a concerts tour around the world by a notable artist was the subject of substential coverages in the media at the time. Here is the notability. This article needs sources, but it should be not deleted. Europe22 (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Europe22 comment. David Pro (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep although notability is not yet established with reliable independent sources, I do believe we should be able to find those sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 01:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apple II Graphics

Apple II Graphics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reads like an essay, no references, too much detail on an obscure topic. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. The version I read was referenced, to several issues of a fairly well known magazine from Back In the Day. They may have been added in the interim. (I remember when we used to have to whittle our own microchips out of wood.) Obscurity is not grounds for deletion, even if this is "obscure". The prose may need editing; again, no reason to delete. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Smerdis.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This article could certainly use a lot of work, and it's probably more detail than most people want. But it does provide sources and it does appear appropriate as a subarticle to Apple II. -Verdatum (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs more sourcing but definitely a viable topic, of interest in the history of computing. 23skidoo (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep most people who use computers today would hardly consider the Apple II system an "obscure topic". JuJube (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment:I meant all the details on the graphics modes was obscure. The Apple II is very prominent and I never intended to imply that it was otherwise. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I might be wrong here- it doesn't seem to me that there is a policy against too high a level of detail; if the subject is deemed to be notable, detail isn't limited, except by WP:UNDUE, etc. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article needs work (it is fairly confusing about what it calls "interlacing" for example), but the workings of the Apple II graphics were written about extensively in the day in books and magazines. It is an obscure topic, but that's no bar to WP:N (and it is kind of fascinating in its own way, in terms of how the solution to various technical problems so differed from most other computers). Kingdon (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - the Apple II graphics most certainly received coverage in Apple-related magazines of the era. I'm not sure if I've tossed them, but I did subscribe to many of those dead tree volumes. -- Whpq (talk) 18:27, 9 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. -- Longhair\talk 08:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Port Macquarie Presbyterian Church

Port Macquarie Presbyterian Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. References have been added, but none establish notability. This is just your average local church. StAnselm (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable local church. The article reads like an attempt to make Wikipedia a hosting provider. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:58, 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 Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sebastian Sabater

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

This seems like a hoax to me. No ghits, and I think I would have heard of a very old soccer player who kicked 13 goals in a World Cup qualifier (although the article is confused between Thompson and Sabater). It failed speedy, so I've come here. Grahame (talk) 13:23, 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 speedily deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Philip Liborio Gangi"

"Philip Liborio Gangi" (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject of the article seems to fail WP:Notability requirements. A Google search turns up 130 hits, however, they are mostly not WP:Reliable sources to confirm his notability or even identity, some of them are his personal sites such as photo albums and Facebook account. This article from Palo Alto Daily News only speaks of him as a cab driver who was a witness to an accident. SWik78 (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Maybe I should sum up my opinion about the subject of this article. I believe he is a cab driver who is involved in photography or he is a photographer earning his living as a cab driver. It definitely seems to be self-promotional since the author of the article and the only contributor is GangiPLG (talk · contribs), a clear reference that he is one and the same as the subject. SWik78 (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete This page shouuld be deleted under WP:CSD#G11. Also it seems to be a violation of WP:COI as the username indicates that User:GangiPLG is most likely, Philip Liborio Gangi. ~ LegoKontribsTalkM 22:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • A7 speedy delete, tagged as such. Unsourced article doesn't even begin to explain why this person is notable. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 00:29, 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 delete. Evidence has been provided that Mr. Lacey did not win an Emmy; therefore, non-notable.. - Philippe 19:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Michael Lacey

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

Previous nom closed with no consensus. "Keep" decision merely procedural, not an endorsement of the article. Non-notable actor. Roles as an extra are not notable. Uncredited extra even less so. Sources provided in the article and in the edit history virtually all self-published or user-submission based sites. DarkAudit (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. He is not actually an actor--he's an extra who has also engaged in some manual labor around movie sets. He does not satisfy WP:BIO. Go ahead and search the entire historical archive of Google News for him and you will come up with precisely ZERO HITS: [37]. If he were in fact any sort of notable actor, there would have been at least one news article about him since the beginning of creation, and there hasn't been even one single utterance about him in print. Most of the "sources" used to buttress this article are indeed self-generated, and don't be fooled, because that includes IMDB, to which subjects can contribute their own resumes. In fact, the earlier version of this article, before I revised it down to a stub, was nothing more than a WP:COPYVIO from IMDB. Additionally, there has been heavy WP:COI and WP:AUTO here, both in the writing of the article and in the previous AfD. The prior discussion was also tainted by behavior that looked very much like WP:SOCK, and if we see that again, a checkuser will be the way to proceed. Finally, I have actually seen him (only because I was looking for him in the corner of the set) in his latest and greatest role, in John Adams (miniseries), in a scene that lasts about two minutes in the U.S. Senate--he is, as always, an extra, just sitting there for a few micro-moments without a line to utter. This article, in its various versions, has never been anything but self-promotion to the extreme, and the previous AfD contained only one keep vote--a suspicious one at that--so I was very surprised that it survived with No Consensus. Let's get rid of it now and salt it if it's recreated. Qworty (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Qworty you sound like you know this actor? Which ep did you see him on? When you say, as always an extra, have you seen him in other things as well? When you say manual labor around movie sets, have you actually met and worked with him? Let me know I would love to meet him sometime.AMLFILMS (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - while I agree that this article's topic isn't notable enough for an article, re-nominating it less than 24 hours after the "no consensus" closure seems inappropriate. If we again fail to reach a consensus, will it just be nominated over and over? Or more precisely, shouldn't the previous AfD have been put to Deletion Review in order to check the closing admin's verdict of "no consensus"? Huon (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I disagree with that position. I would agree with you if the previous result had been Keep. But the previous result was not Keep. The previous result was No Consensus. Wikipedia is all about reaching consensus. There's no point in a no-consensus article continuing to take up space. Let's reach consensus, as editors are always supposed to do, and resolve this issue now. Qworty (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Deletion review is for "appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion." This article doesn't fall under that rubric. It wasn't deleted and it was never determined to be a Keep. It was merely No Consensus. I think we should reach a real consensus now and vote to delete it, though if an admin sees this and wants to Speedy it, I'll certainly be satisfied. Qworty (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Reply - from WP:DRV, "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly", which I interpret to apply to no-concensus decisions as well. And a SPEEDY wouldn't apply here because it has been through AFD before, and at least at one point, there was an assertion of notability in winning a regional emmy. Note also the info the closing admin left at user talk:Polly -- Whpq (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I certainly respect your position, though I'd hate for this thing to continue to exist due to any kind of wikilawyered technicalities (NOT that I'm accusing you or anyone else at this point of wikilawyering in the article's behalf). Thank you for posting the link to the closing admin's comments on another editor's talk page. Frankly, I don't think the final outcome should come down to him. He's had his say, and now I would prefer to see consensus prevail. Qworty (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete: Fails WP:BIO by a country mile, and I'm quite staggered at both the notion that it's taking a second AfD to bounce this article and that, with 7-3 in favor of Delete and two of the Keep votes coming from SPAs, that this was closed as a No Consensus. I would be extremely interested to have the previous closing admin explain why he took a baldfaced, unsourced, unproven assertion of notability from one of the SPAs and used that as a justification to close No Consensus without bothering to check on it. I swear, every time someone tells me "Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information," I think of instances like these where people make presumptions without even pretending to check the facts first.  RGTraynor  16:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment You profess to want to help correct facts and verify information. What research have you done to support this article? What does baldfaced mean, did you mean to say boldfaced? Because I think that is the correct cliche.AMLFILMS (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep (for now) and speedy close. Honestly, the previous AfD has only just finished. If you don't agree with the "no concensus" closure, then take it to Deletion Review or raise the matter with the closing admin. I'd like to assume good faith, but the nominator seems to be making a POINT here. PC78 (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • And yes, the closing admin did comment on his decision here. PC78 (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • What the closing admin said was that he overturned a clear consensus on the unproven, unsourced assertion by the SPA who created the article (and who has no other edits on Wikipedia) that the subject was an Emmy-award winner feature actor ... and the SPA, User talk:AMLFILMS, happens to have the same initials as the subject of the article. The closing admin said that he'd get around to researching this by midweek, but on such desperately threadbare assertions by an SPA with probable (and obvious) WP:COI issues, the AfD should never have been closed as a Keep or NC in the first place. If the point that nom is making is that the closing admin was at level best terribly careless, hear hear.  RGTraynor  17:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
        • All of which should be taken up with the closing admin or Deletion Review. PC78 (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the previous result had been Keep, then I would agree that having a second nomination so soon would be problematic. But the result wasn't Keep, it was No Consensus. That simply means that consensus is yet to be reached. How can consensus be reached if wikilawyers refuse to allow the matter to be discussed? The nominator here is not being disruptive, and he is not trying to make some arcane wikilawyered point. He is simply trying to continue the discussion so that we can reach consensus. Bear in mind also that there is ample precedent for the renomination of No Consensus AfDs, as here for instance: [38]. Qworty (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • In the example you give, there was a six week gap between the close of one AfD and the start of another; here there was less than 24 hours. No one is refusing to let this matter be discussed, but there are certain ways of going about things. As I said above, rasing the matter with the closing admin or Deletion Review would have been preferable to starting up another AfD. Why not give Philippe the benefit of the doubt and allow him to do his research? He's already said that he will be keeping tabs on the article. Why the urgency in trying to get this article deleted? Why not give it a chance before restarting the discussion? I'm sorry, but I fail to see how reopening an AfD this soon, simply because the outcome was not "desirable", is anything but disruptive. PC78 (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Great. Would you mind explaining how it is "disruptive?" What, if anything, is this disrupting?  RGTraynor  18:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There wasn't a keep. There wasn't a delete. there was no consensus. Meaning no decision whatsoever. Inspite of the overwhelming evidence against the article, and the utter inability for the author to provide proper sources when pressed. The "Emmy" claimed was a regional Emmy for a show that aired in the DC area, and the competition was confined to the DC/Chesapeake Bay area, not national. Even then, there was nothing provided by the author to confirm the claim except a challenge to call the local branch of the academy. The onus to provide the source is on the author, and his statement appears to me as a flat refusal to do so. Even so, I took up that challenge. It has been over a week since I emailed the Capital/Chesapeake branch, and all I have to show for it is that the show did exist and that it aired on WUSA. No reply to confirm or deny the Emmy award or even a nomination. The author claims no association with the subject, and that the username is merely a coincidence. Bollocks to that. There is so much evidence to the contrary that good faith can no longer be reasonably assumed. DarkAudit (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - although DRV would have been th preferable route, the second AFD nomimation has been made. The article has no reliable sources to establish notability and all previous incarnations of the article don't meet verifiability -- Whpq (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Totaly fails WP:NOTE. Hint of probable WP:AUTO. Can't really understand why it didn't go 1st time. --New Kind Of Grey (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Per WP:BIO, created by single purpose account, for a non-notable extra.--Adamfinmo (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have come to the conclusion the Wiki institution is politically and personally oriented and some of the debates sound as if the writer has an agenda and not rooted in critical thinking, a sad note about this country, but moving on. It is obvious most of the debators have done no research and are commenting without reason. Good intentions from these people do not help. I will try to help educate again. I have supplied 250 websites, which include, pictures, photographs, and scene stills, some of the links maybe broken because a character is missing or the link is being updated, some have been changed, however the others are ligit and exist. This person must be an actor because only an actor can be nominated and honored for 2 Emmy awards. I have submitted links, phone numbers, addresses, references to verify the Emmy Awards. He has starred on In Our Lives for 60 or more ep. for 7 years. Regardless, if this show is good or bad is irrelevant, the fact is it existed and he was contracted and worked on it. The term "Extra" has not been used for almost 10 years now the correct term is Background performer and Background performers are well respected, I looked it up, even on your Wiki site: Background performer, SAG productions require a minimum number of SAG members be employed as background performers before a producer is permitted to hire a non-union background performer in their production. For television productions, the minimum number of SAG background performers is 19, and for feature films, the minimum is 50. Often, due to the uniqueness of a role, or constraints on the numbers of available SAG performers or last-minute cancellations, those minimums are unable to be met. When this happens, producers are permitted to fill one or more of those union spots with non-union performers. The non-union performer chosen to fill the union spot is then issued a union extra voucher for the day, and that non-union performer is entitled to all the same benefits and pay that the union performer would have received under that voucher. After collecting three valid union vouchers for three separate days of work, a non-union performer then becomes SAG-Eligible. The SAG-Eligible background performer may continue working in non-union productions and is not required to join the Guild before performing in another SAG production as a background performer. According to the FAQ on the SAG website, this "three voucher rule" is in the process of being phased out.[4] There is a difference between an extra and a SAG Background performer. I made another leap and called Screen Actors Guild, American Federation of Television Radio Artists, and Actor Equity Association. Apparently, he has been a member of all unions for almost 20 years. This guy has to be an actor. Through more research I found these articles,

Interview/article "The Commonwealth Times" (USA) 30 August 1995, Vol. 27, Iss. 3, pg. 1+6+10, by: Sara Kukorlo, "To the other Shining in Sheen's Shadow " "The Washington Post" (USA) 20 March 1997 "The Fairfax Journal" (USA) 24 November 1995, Vol. 57, Iss. 227, pg. C-6, by: Jen Chaney, "Actor has an 'Edge' in filming new picture" "The Springfield Connection" (USA) 2 November 1995, Vol. IX, Iss. 44, pg. 10+19, by: Jennifer Lafley, "Actor films movie in Northern Virginia" "The Burke Times" (USA) 26 October 1995, Vol. 2, Iss. 80, pg. A-1+A-7, by: Caron Carlson, "Living on the 'Edge' actor turns store into set for his new movie" "The Burke/Fairfax Station Connection" (USA) 26 October 1995, Vol. IX, Iss. 43, pg. 1+6+29, by: Jennifer Lafley, "Lights, Camera . . . Action! Actor films movie in Northern Virginia" "Loudoun Times-Mirror" (USA) 18 October 1995, Vol. 197, Iss. 42, pg. A-12, by: Heather DuVall, "Cameras Focus on Airmont" "The Washington Times" (USA) 5 August 1995, pg. B1+B2, by: Mensah Dean, "Going from bit parts to the 'Edge'" "Georgetown and Country" (USA) August 1995, Vol. 3, pg. 1+5, by: M.J. Firestone, "Double take" "The Enquirer-Gazette" (USA) 20 July 1995, Vol. 112, Iss. 30, pg. A-1+A-5, by: Ken Garber, "Actor uses stories and silver screen to change lives" "The Fairfax Journal" (USA) 7 July 1995, Vol. 57, Iss. 130, pg. C-3, by: Jen Chaney, "Hometown boy does a double take" "The Burke Times" (USA) 15 June 1995, pg. A-9, by: John Reosti, "At 26, Burke Center Film Veteran Aims Camera at Hollywood" "The Burke Connection" (USA) 8 June 1995, Vol. IX, Iss. 23, pg. 1, by: Jennifer Lafley, "Burke actor takes his shot" "The Port Gazette Packet Port Plus" (USA) 8 June 1995, Vol. CCXXII, Iss. 18, pg. P-1+P-3, by: Robert MacMillan, "Big deals in works for actor" I called everyone of these newspapers and talked to the clerks and found these issues do exist. To say this actor is not notable is a different issue. We can agree he has done all of this work, which to me, is amazing. I personally could not do half the stuff he has accomplished or even begin to know how to do it. I actually watched the John Adams episode and saw his name in the credits. If that is not giving an actor credit, I do not know what is. "There are not small parts only small people." Notable means: conspicuous, memorable, great, remarkable, noticeable, noted, outstanding, unusual, and uncommon. He also inspires me to take pride in my job at the lab. He is an inspiration worthy of giving him one little page on an institution that houses 2 320 000+ articles on the English version. I do not think he is powerful enough to bring down a whole institution as the importance of Wikipedia, and I donot think he is any more important than any of us. However, I do think his story is an interesting and inspirational one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 09:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC) AMLFILMS (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • "We can agree he has done all of this work"? Not a chance. The sources given are from user-submission run databases. People can claim almost whatever they want there. The branch of the academy has not confirmed or denied the Emmy, but only say the show exists. DarkAudit (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • So your educated opinion is, none of this exists and all of this is made up by this guy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 14:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment So I am curious, and maybe you can teach me something here. What would be the purpose of this guy, randomly throwing out information? I am sure its not so he can earn more money or make his life better. That is just a guess. And for the answer to my last question, why would this guy not list-- nothing but-- blockbuster movies on these sites, why list the majority as crap? If you think Transformers and Forrest Gump are blockbuster hits and respectable works of art, I think you missed my point. I am saying if he is going to just make up stuff and list it why not chose respectable work like La Regle du jeu, Dekalog, La Vita e bella, or even Le Fabuleux destin d'Amelie Poulain. Also, if I am not being too forward, what is your Academic background in film Brian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 14:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you saying that Forrest Gump, which grossed over $300 million domestically and over $300 million internationally, and was the highest-grossing film of the year 1994, was not a blockbuster hit? Anyway, the quality or lack of quality of Forrest Gump is hardly my responsibility -- Mr. Lacey himself chose to participate in the making of that film in the uncredited role of "National Guardsman". I don't think that the subject is lying about the movies he has worked on. Rather, I think that he is trying to list every project he has worked on whether his particular role was significant or not -- and usually it wasn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Another idea hit me, why would he only list himself as a 2 time honored Regional Emmy award recipient and not a National recipient or even an Academy Award winner? That is the biggest mystery, at least to me yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 15:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • CommentAnother question, since I have never done this before, do I keep working on the article for this guy or do I wait until all this riff-raff is over? And if I am suppose to keep working on it, does the information stay or do I have to worry about computer glitches continually erasing the valid information?AMLFILMS (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • If you could make the article better now, you certainly ought to do that. If the article becomes better now, some people might see this discussion, look at the article, and then come back and recommend in favor of keeping it. If you wait too long to improve the article, it might get deleted before you get around to improving it. I don't know whether computer glitches are going to erase valid information, and I doubt that anybody else could predict such glitches either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Oh one more question so I can understand your idea. Are you saying he has done none of this work and therefore is non-notable? Or, are you saying he has done this work, only that it is Background artistry work and therefore is non-notable? Or, are you saying he is an actor because he is with Screen Actors Guild, only he has done only Background artist work and therefore is non-notable? Also, I will call the Regional Emmy Awards branch and talk to Sue personally. I will tell her what is happening and to expect your call if you like. I know trying to get in touch with these people is almost impossible, the same thing almost happened to me after I called all the newspapers. I would actually like to do what you guys do, this is fun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 15:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Alright, I have a question. Considering that you are the creator and sole editor of this article, and that your user name shares initials with Lacey, why are you referring to yourself in the third person and asking others about your motivations?  RGTraynor  15:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Again, I have said this before, I am submitting this article and am not the subject matter. Second, I am learning like everyone else here, for all I know this guy could be a fraud. If he is, I would love to find out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 15:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment My last question was not recorded, if it is not too forward what is your academic history with film Taynor?
  • Reply: It is too forward, especially since I am not the only person to whom you've asked it. I do not need to "prove" my credentials -- to the degree anyone can over a computer -- to judge articles in AfD discussions based upon their verifiability, notability and adherence to Wikipedia policy and standards. I strongly suggest you cease to ask people this.  RGTraynor  17:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - This article suffers from two problems. Firstly, Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. I've yet to see any reliable source for the Emmy, for example. AMLFILMS claimed above that he was "honored for 2 Emmy awards", yet this Awards page lists only one. Secondly, most users seem to agree that Lacey isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The corresponding guideline is WP:BIO; one of the relevant lines is: "Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." His uncredited roles can be disregarded entirely, leaving him with basically two roles which might fit: The 1997 movie Edge (not to be confused with The Edge), and the series In Our Lives. Both seem to be rather non-notable themselves, leaving Lacey without "significant roles in notable films". His award can also be seen as a claim to notability, and if we could verify it, I might be persuaded to change my opinion on this article. But right now, we have no verifiable claim to notability. To answer one of AMLFILMS' questions: If you can improve the article, addressing the concerns raised here (ie by adding reliable sources), you should do so now. Given that up to now no one but you has argued for keeping it and that deletion looks likely, I'd say other work on the article might be a waste of time, but it's not forbidden by any Wikipedia policy I can think of. I don't know what glitches you're talking about, so I can't answer that part of your question. Huon (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Well to answer your question, information and reliable sources I added to the article mysteriously were deleted, when I asked before Darkaudit had claimed he did it, I just assumed this was a computer glitch problem. As for the "honored for 2 Emmy awards" the phone number again is 301-587-3939, speak with Diane Crew or Sue Ann Starke. Although I am starting to side with you guys, even with this there really is nothing here that is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMLFILMS (talk • contribs) 15:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment A national Emmy claim would be much easier to prove or disprove. If there were such lack of evidence for a national Emmy as there is here, the article would never have made it as far as the first AfD, it would have been speedied outright. I've called the regional branch. I've left emails. No response to confirm or deny the Emmy. In any case, a phone conversation is invalid per WP:RS as not verifiable. Considering the stature of the station that produced "In Our Lives", the amount of credit that is given to Mr. Lacey on the IMDB page in comparison to the full body of his work is suspicious. IMDB is used to back up other sources, but is not generally considered reliable because of it's user-submitted entry nature. DarkAudit (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not think my last message was posted. What is suspicioius is does this Regionial Emmy place even exist? Until now I never even knew there were Regional Emmys. I thought there were just National Emmy's. In any case even if this Diane Crew or Sue Ann Starke do confirm these honors is this article even notable?AMLFILMS (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
These are the member stations of the region. The competition was only among these stations (give or take any stations added or removed to the list in the intervening years). So you're talking about a region from Baltimore to Richmond, and the show only aired on one channel in DC. DarkAudit (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Background performer. The article's sole defender goes on and on and on and on in his efforts to prove that Lacey is a "background performer." Well, I am certainly convinced of it. And I am just as surely convinced that "background performer" equals NON-NOTABLE. As for his desperate suggestions that we phone or email so-and-so, that would be nothing more or less than WP:OR, which is expressly forbidden. Qworty (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The subject's filmography consists primarily of uncredited roles in films and television, most of which were for characters without personal names (such as "Truck Worker" or "Russian Guard"). The rest of his work consists mostly of his own low-budget independent films which have never received a commercial theatrical release as far as I can tell, and a few years on a local television show. Supposedly he won two regional Emmys (at two different ceremonies in the same year?) for the local television show, although searching the Washington Post on the ProQuest database doesn't find evidence of that. The chapter that awards these regional Emmys doesn't even bother to keep a list of past winners dating back past 2003 on its web site, which gives one an idea of how significant they are. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as previous AfD closed ONE DAY before this second nomination. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Not only did it close with no decision made whatsoever, the decision to close was made in contradiction to the direction of the debate based on potentially false information. DarkAudit (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I just received an email from the Chapter Adminstrator of the Capital/Chesapeake Bay branch of the NATAS. They were able to confirm that Mr Lacey did not win the Emmy as he claimed, but was instead given a Production Certificate by the show's producers for working on the show. DarkAudit (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yeah, it's about time for an admin to close this and delete the article. Given the repeated and ferocious insistence by SPAs that this non-notable subject is in fact notable, as well as the repeated proffering of "evidence" that turns out not to be true, I'd be happy to see it Salted as well.  RGTraynor  17:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Hear hear. I second the gentleman who nominates this subject for a thorough salting. Look at all of the time and energy this trivial matter has taken up, simply because an extra--cough, cough, excuse me, a background performer--decided to come here to write an article about himself, and then, when it was quite rightly prodded for deletion, flagrantly violated WP:COI by showing up here in person to constitute the sole voice in his own defense. And now it turns out that the most "notable" fact proferred by the individual is--let me try to phrase this as delicately as possible--not in the strictest or even loosest terms congruent with the facts. Salt, salt, salt, salt salt away, salt this one like a snail... Qworty (talk) 18:16, 15 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, in the expectation that all parts of the article that violate copyright (if any) will be excised shortly. Sandstein (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)

Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The primary author put this up for peer review, but sadly, it belongs here instead. Every word of the descriptive text in this long list article is a copyright violation from the Austrian Mint website. You can see it by picking any coin with a footnote next to its name, and clicking on the referenced source. You'll find the exact same paragraphs for each coin in the list, as well as all the same images. This article has so much copyvio that it has essentially nothing that isn't lifted from the Austrian Mint, and thus, it needs to go. Ig8887 (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • KEEP The article seems good to me. The article just needs sorting out a bit. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The only point that I saw in doubt was whether it should be deleted, or SPEEDY deleted. According to WP:COPYVIO, an article that is entirely comprised of copyright violations should be reverted to a previous non-violating edition. No such edition exists, so the official policy says it should be deleted. To be clear: This is an article that has had exactly one author, and is more than 90% copyright violation. What possible rationale is there for keeping it? Is there a WP:SEEMSGOODTOME that trumps copyright violations? --Ig8887 (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I am the main writer of the article, and I completely understand what Ig8887 is saying. In the defence of the article, and not my defence, I would like to say a few things:
- It took me months to find all the information for the silver and gold euro coins of different countries (for some countries I am still investigating), which I am still putting together in Wikipedia. Unfortunately or fortunately, the Austrian mint is one of the few mints that gives extensive information on the coins they mint. It also happens, coincidently, that Austria is also the first country in the euro zone alphabetically, and that is the only reason I started from there. As you can see, I am currently working on Belgium, and there is no information at all from the Belgian mint web site, not even in Dutch or French.
- The description of the coins in the article can be changed, by using better English, and I will work it out extensively if I need to in order not to be the exact description of the Austrian mint (that was the main reason to ask for review).
- The description in the cited web site is a description of a currency coin, which itself does not violate any copyright. Even and ad-hoc personal description of a small item like that will be very similar to the one cited in the Austrian mint site.
- All the references to the Austrian mint can be removed. I put that on purpose there, so people know where exactly the main information came from, and it is not "made of" information. I thought that would be fair for the Austrian Mint web site. I wrote them a few weeks back telling them I am building a wiki article about all gold and silver coins in the euro zone and that I was referencing to their site. I asked them to update their English text of all coins, since all coins from 2007 onwards did not have any description. They never replied, but all the information of all coins in their site is now updated.
- I am planning to do a similar article for all the gold and silver euro coins of all the countries in the euro zone. You do not need to, but believe me on this one: such information does not exist on the web or it is staggered in hundreds of sites in at least ten different languages. I have tons of mails to different sources, friends, colleague collectors, and they all agree is a shame that information like this one does not exists (or cannot be easily found).
- I am open to suggestions of any kind, even writing to the Austrian mint and asking for their permission if needed, but I strongly believe that once all countries in the euro zone have a wiki page explaining as detailed as possible their gold and silver euro coins mintage, it will be very valuable information for all the numismatic enthusiastic.
- I am working on other non-numismatic articles as well, creating references in the articles of the different motives of the coin back to the coin (check Vienna Philharmonic or St. Benedict for example). Someone told me that was a good idea, since lots of people do not know that some of their favourite places, figures, objects, people, histoy events ... etc. has been the main motives of silver and gold coins that can be preserve for ever. I personally thought that information in the other articles was really cool. Obviously I am carefully referencing back in this article as well.
- Please take a look at the stats, it has been only less than a month and it is receiving 40+ hits per day. That have to mean something right?
Allow me a few days and I will change all the texts. I will re-submit for peer-review then. Apologies, but I am a newbie to Wikipedia, I hope you can forgive me, let me work on the article, and let the article survive, I think it deserves it. Best regards. Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Requires a cleanup to remove any copyvio. ChessCreator ChessCreator (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: Is it actually copyright violation? I can't make out whether the source text actually is copyrighted; I don't know what claim the Austrian goverment makes, but anything published by the U.S. government is explicitly public domain. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I cannot find a copyright statement on the website. Government copyrights do, however, vary by country. For example, nearly everything on British Government websites is covered by Crown copyright and not public domain. – ukexpat (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The subject itself has sufficient notability. If there are any copyvio issues they can be addressed. Mjroots (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I want to add that I have changed all descriptions of the first section of the article (year 2002), hopefully this section is alreayd copyvio free. Please let me know if I should continue working in the rest of the article in order to set this issue. Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I want to update that 50% or the article have changed (Vienna Philharmonic, 2002, 2003 and 2004 sections). I hope all the work put in this article can survive after the 50% left is changed. Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP I don't see why there is any hurry to delete an article when there are people willing and participating in the sorting out of the current copyright Issue (if its even copyright) Kevin hipwell (talk) 12:37, 9 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. -- Longhair\talk 08:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Nipp

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

Non-notable. No consensus was reached when this was nominated a couple of years ago, but notability has still not been established. StAnselm (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Actually, it doesn't. At least, I don't think so. I think it refers to "mayors" and then also "council members of major metropolitan cities". Maybe the ambiguity needs to be fixed. StAnselm (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: Noble Sponge has been confirmed per checkuser as a sock account. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Singularity 07:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Funeral For My Chemical Valentine

Funeral For My Chemical Valentine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fictitious dawkeye (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Whilst failing to negotiate the usual hurdles of WP:N and WP:V the article also crashes headlong into the territory covered by WP:MADEUP and, primarily, WP:BOLLOCKS. All of which amounts to Delete. OBM | blah blah blah 12:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • DELETEAs it is a joke article. Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's so obvious. (PS: Yeesh, OBM, watch the WP:WTF!) 21655 ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 13:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax? if not for sure a non notable band that is unsourced and unverifiable. GtstrickyTalk or C 13:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. May be a hoax; I don't know how to hunt down bands, so I can't really verify whether or not they actually exist. In any case, they're completely not notable; they're not even verifiable. Celarnor Talk to me 13:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT. It's made up, proclaims to have hit #37 on an unspecified chart (US Modern Rock? Billboard Hot 100? UK Singles Chart?) but simply from how its written, it seems very likely this was made by someone to be funny (example: a member - the drummer - is proclaimed to have died in a "bizarre trouser accident". How Spinal Tap.) Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 15:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, clearly a hoax. Snowball? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A bunch of middle aged men have nothing better to do with their time than try to delete articles on wikipedia that have nothing to do with them, Sad. Granthardie (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't leave the ladies out of your scorn. Equal time, you know. :)--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
A bunch of teenagers who have nothing better to do with their time than try to add articles on wikipedia that no one cares about, Sad. JuJube (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as either a hoax or massively non-notable. Total of 3 non-wiki ghits, none of which show notability. No hits in google news. Perhaps this article should die "in a bizarre trouser malnfunction (sic) incident"? --Fabrictramp (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fails WP:N. Google search shows only 2 ghits outside wikipedia [39]. No significant coverage in reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax as I was unable to find sources on Academic Search Complete, Amazon.com, and dogpile.com. Also, "Phil McCracken" on guitar?! Finally, lack of notability: "This album recieved little attention and did not even make its way into the Billboard charts." The only improvements I was able to make were grammar related. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • What, you've never heard of my uncle Phil the world famous blues guitarist? Kidding... delete google finds nothing except what appear to be jocular references (e.g. "You listen to Funeral for my Chemical Valentine? And Slip-Korn of a Down!") Creator is an SPA, making two edits, creating the article and posting here. Is this from some movie I've never seen? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax, junk, dumb kids wasting their time, you name it. JuJube (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

yet it's not wasting time to look on google and amazon for whether it exists or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Granthardie (talk • contribs) 12:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm let's see five google hits most using the term to describe a mocking amalgam of the bands Funeral for a Friend, My Chemical Romance and Bullet for My Valentine. Amazon gives me no matches. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That's what it means. MCR was the only one of those bands I'd heard of. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 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 Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no delete votes. NAC. Celarnor Talk to me 13:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wonderland Online

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

This is an unreleased game that hopes to enter a closed beta test in the next two days. Until it is released, it will not be able to meet the criteria for notability, and as such should be deleted until released and documented in third-party reliable sources. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The game is already documented as existing in reliable, third-party sources such as IGN and Gamespot. It seems strange that you would want to delete an article that is just going to be rebuilt in less than 48 hours. That being said, the game was already released in Alpha form, and, to great success. Further, the game already exists in China and Japan, and I am currently in the process of getting my hands on information about those versions of the game. I thought that it would be more appropriate and wait to include that information once references were available, rather than to simply throw it in there and hope for the references later. This may take a little while for me to get, as I am working with a group that does not possess English as its first language. Translating that material may take more than a few seconds, so I would ask for your patience.--Fuen Fuboo (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
My contention is that even in 48 hours, being in beta release does not establish notability for an encyclopaedic article. The article simply refers to the English version of the game, and the references are to an official site, and a one-line summary and some images at Gamespot. This does not appear to meet the depth of coverage at present Fritzpoll (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I am suitably embarrassed not to have spotted those. Nomination withdrawn Fritzpoll (talk) 12:57, 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. Fram (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony J. Mifsud

Anthony J. Mifsud (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Total lack of reliable sources, questionable notability, and edited extensively by User:Mifmaster, who appears to have a conflict of interest. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • STRONG KEEP It is notable. Its lacks in references, but that is no reason for deletion. Ijanderson977 (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep has won awards, seems to meet WP:BIO. GtstrickyTalk or C 13:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral - interview here.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP Everything is verifiable. I am extremely dissapointed that this article is being considered for deletion. It really seems to be a mission on Stifle's part to delete this article. I believe that all the information provided can be supported. There are many many more articles in Wikipedia that provide less information and less verifiable facts. I'd be more than willing to challenge Stifle on this point. menright63 (User talk:menright63) 22:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Relax People have different opinions on what should be included here and what shouldn't. This article really has no chance of being deleted, but will have a much better chance of surviving if you calm down and focus on why it should be kept.Beach drifter (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment menright63 is the articles original creator and also has an apparent COI. Beach drifter (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I've been watching this article for a while and honestly never liked it. I removed tons of content last week to clean it up, as originally it was pretty bad. However it seems to pretty clearly meet inclusion guidelines. It could use some better sources. My main problem is that the original article is exactly what is in the actor's Bio at IMDB. I'm not sure which was created first, and CorenBot never tagged it. As the article stands now there still may be copyright issues, as it is still the same as the IMDB info, less the text I removed.Beach drifter (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep - Yet another bad faith sockpuppet nomination. FCYTravis (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Motorcyclists Alliance

Jewish Motorcyclists Alliance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

595 ghits does not make this organization notable Moosato Cowabata (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You may not realize it, but this is actually an improvement argument, not deletion argument. Per WP:DEL, if it can be fixed by methods other than deletion (such as editing), it's not a good deletion candidate. Celarnor Talk to me 12:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Several sources are available for the subject. Also, nominator's rationale is inherently flawed. See WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. Celarnor Talk to me 12:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP For same reason as above. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep For the same reasons as Celarnor mentions. lnemtsov (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per sources found by Celarnor. There's no "If sources aren't yet placed in the article, then those sources don't exist and the article must be deleted" clause of WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep if citations are added - There are sources, but now someone needs to take the time to put them in. Assuming someone will do that, it's a keep. But if nobody bothers to source the article between now and close, this should be deleted. FCYTravis (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sources simply not placed in the article yet doesn't mean the topic is non-notable, it just means the article on this notable topic should be improved.--Oakshade (talk) 04:05, 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 Speedy keep - consensus to keep, and it's a bad faith sockpuppet nomination. If someone wants this deleted, they can open another one. FCYTravis (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of motorcycle clubs

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

There is a category for such, terefore a list would not be needed as for most of these are redlinked. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:LIST. It appears to be an ordered developmental list that complements the category. A category cannot show red-links for missing encyclopedic entries, an important function. Notability of red-linked clubs should be better sourced, but the main problems with the list were fixed in the first AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete/Merge how many motorcycle clubs would be notable? If this is destined to be a list of red links, and not a complete list since I'd imagine there are far more motorcycle clubs in the world than those listed, then I say delete. However if it will eventually serve as a home for clubs that are not notable on their own but could be discussed as a part of a whole 'motorcycle clubs' then perhaps it should be merged here: Motorcycle club. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 11:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Even things in list have to adhere to notability guidelines. The inclusion of a few redlinks isn't a a rationale for deletion. It's a rationale for improving the article and removing them, or if they are notable enough to have their own article, to write their articles. Celarnor Talk to me 12:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Reply a few red links is wonderful for red link development but if they're never going to be articles because they're not notable, they're dedtined to be perma redlinks. That's why I asked the likelihood of these ever being notable. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 14:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:CLN. Nominator should re-read guidelines for lists and categories. Categories don't replace lists. Include only notable motorcycle clubs (which is already how lists generally work, per LISTS), and there's no reason to delete. Celarnor Talk to me 12:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Primarily because I concur with Celarnor. Garth of the Forest (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete One year later, it's still an indiscriminate list whose stated purpose is to be "a list of articles of motorcycle-related clubs". The red-links, obviously, are not articles. The blue links are covered by a category, which has no less information than is on this list. The other problem with the list is that there's no definition of what a "motorcycle-related club" is, and this one appears to take all comers. Got a motorcycle club? Add it to the list. If there were a "list of roadhouses favored by bikers" that had this little in the way of organization, I don't think there would be much question of whether to delete it. In this case, the category works just fine, and if you want your club in the category, write an article about it. Mandsford (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Gene. Also, a reader asking "what motorcycle clubs are there?" is not being unreasonable, and nor is the question trivial miscellany. It is not unreasonable for Wikipedia to provide that list. So aside from the developmental benefit of this list due to the redlinks, the list has a reasonable informational function as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, do any of you keep voters needed to be reminded that this is not a club directory which is what I really want to point out. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Lists and categories are not mutually exclusive, and a list of notable articles is just fine per WP:LIST. MickMacNee (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have boldly removed the redlinks and the prose cut and paste stuff at the bottom, it realy should be a list of WP articles only. MickMacNee (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Singularity 07:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leann Collins

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

A biographical article which has all the tell-tale signs of an autobiographical puff piece; before it was substantially cleaned up by Spark.blue (talk · contribs), it read like something you'd read on the back cover of a book. The sources do not speak to the subject's notability and all, and she gets little more than 600 Ghits. I don't think this photographer is as notable as the article makes her seem. I strongly suspect the primary author, (Dsefton88 (talk · contribs), is Collins herself. JuJube (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete fails WP:N and WP:COI. 39 unique Ghits, the leading one being her own website and the second being wikipedia. Then follow a bunch of directory networking site listings. No articles to speak of, and the majority of references appear to be WP:SPS. If supplying a list of court filings for copyright infringement is synonymous with notability, then something must be wrong. The article was authored by David Sefton, the subject's husband. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for failing WP:N, as above. Seems to be a photographer who sues a lot... not sure of notability beyond that. Also has shades of WP:COI and WP:NPOV. OBM | blah blah blah 12:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & others. Her best chance to show notability would be the only para which is unreferenced. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 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 Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aimee G

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

Take your pick: non-notable musician who falls below our threshold at WP:MUSIC, also a nose-tackle in training who fails WP:ATHLETE; generally not notable per WP:BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I assume that the content of this article is enough to avoid a speedy for recreated material? Xymmax (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment @ Great Pumpkin King - I'm confused. Is your position that the subject is notable specifically as a musician? None of the links (outside of the group's own website) even address the subject's music. She even indicates on her own website that she is taking a break from "all the artsy stuff" and that she "may or may not" make more music. None of her songs have charted. Surely she's not notable for her music? Xymmax (talk) 15:24, 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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Dustitalk to me 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of business failures

List of business failures (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominated because a company collapsing is a common occurrence, also there is no definition of this list as it is undefinable for the fact administration does not mean the end of the road for a company Dr Tobias Funke (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. A viable topic. Per WP:LISTS, it should only include notable businesses that have failed. If it doesn't, it can be improved to do so. However, "Failure" needs to be defined. Perhaps "List of businesses that have filed for bankruptcy" would be better, as that would be easier to source. Celarnor Talk to me 12:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP A useful article. Just don't list small crappy business which no one has heard of in the list. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep A well maintained, high quality list with only a few red links. This is not intended to be the list of companies which have filed for bankruptcy/ administration, which as Dr. T F point out, does not necessarily mean the failure of the business. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Fairly well maintained list with finite criteria for inclusion, with decent refs and a reasonably small number of red links. Meets WP:LISTS easily. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as above, however there needs to be a definition of what failure is. My suggestion is to keep those with its own articles. For those who don't, my recommendation is... all entries needs to be sourced, redlinked article (notable ones) will be kept at the talk section. Thats my rough suggestion. Willirennen (talk) 18:06, 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 delete. Singularity 07:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nata Menabde

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

Delete a deputy director of a regional office is not notable - so nn we don't know where or when she was born, red flags of non-notability in a modern biography. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 08:52, 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 delete. Singularity 07:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blank Noize

Blank Noize (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 08:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete There is a perfectly good attempt at an establishment of notability in the lead section. However I find the claims to be highly questionable without verifiable and reliable sources. Otherwise, seems to be a failure of WP:MUSIC. -Verdatum (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 22:20, 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 Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spunout software

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

Does not pass our notabiltiy guidelines for organizations (WP:CORP) Produced some homebrew games that were only published through public domain and magazine coverdisks. Does not appear to be any substantial, reliable, independent coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Issues 90 and 104 of the Amiga Format magazine apparently mentioned one of their games/had included it on a cover CD. As per the nomination that's not enough for Wikipedia's notability guidelines. --Minimaki (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination and Minimaki. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 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 Delete. Vanity press publication, plus a lot of self-promotion, does not equal notability. Pastordavid (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enzo Fardone

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

Not verifiable by third party sources and hence not notable. Google (21 ghits) doesn't bring up anything interesting. MER-C 08:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The information in the article is verifiable as far as I can ascertain. He took legal action against Dan Brown and Transworld over The Da Vinci Code, which was reported in Australia by several News Limited newspapers: Author launches 'Code' lawsuit and I wrote Da Vinci Code original (I don't know why these references do not seem to appear in your search). --Canley (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as currently insufficiently notable (there are still only 108 Ghits). Reading those references, it doesn't look as if he actually took legal action. The fuller one, I wrote Da Vinci Code original, says he sent a solicitor's letter in 2006 and planned to take it further. It's 2008 now, and nothing else has appeared in the news, so we can conclude no lawsuit has happened yet. Starburst Publishing is, incidentally, an author-subsidised publisher [43] which considerably reduces the notability of the book, and we wouldn't want this non-news being used to sucker Wikipedia effectively into promoting it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It also appears that he might have created or edited his own page. --Sharkface217 03:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for bringing that up. It's not a reason to delete, but it is worth noting. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Made major news, per Canley. Yes, there aren't 10000000 ghits (WP:GHITS), but he is notable, possibly for making a bit of a fool of himself. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Made major news
Can we justify the notability of that? Regional news, professing forthcoming litigation that never happened. And of course we might diss the Google test, but only 100 or so hits is, as you say, worth noting. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anybody can file suit against anybody else at any time for any reason. Notability isn't based on that. Also, he can't be notable for not doing something--i.e., for not writing The DaVinci Code. You can only be notable for doing something, not for not doing something. Qworty (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've looked into this matter further and three things appear to be true: 1) There was never a lawsuit, just a letter sent by a lawyer, 2) The article was indeed written by the subject, and 3) his "publisher" is indeed a vanity press. We're getting very close to WP:HOAX here. Clearly, we cannot allow an individual to arrange for a lawyer to send a letter, to arrange for a book to be vanity published, and then to show up here to write an article about himself. This thing is a million miles away from notability of any kind. Qworty (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
sent by a lawyer ...
... called Enzo Anthony Fardone [44] Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:55, 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. Singularity 07:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thiago Alcántara do Nascimento

Thiago Alcántara do Nascimento (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD contested by a brand-new user at his first "contribution" ever. This article is about a 17-year old guy contracted with the Barcelona youth system; the subject fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN (no professional appearances). Angelo (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Angelo (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & Number57. GiantSnowman (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as above - the only point of interest at the moment is his father but that's not enough. He may be a notable player one day, but not now. Bettia (talk) 09:39, 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 ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FxMarketSpace

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

An advertisement for a company of minor importance

  • Delete claim of being "first" probably precludes a speedy, but there's no indication of notability to satisfy WP:CORP. DarkAudit (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 08:06, 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 delete, including images; SPA "keep" opinion discounted. Sandstein (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SAMVA USA chart

SAMVA USA chart (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable 'chart' created as original research by an internet user interested in astrology. The text is taken verbatim from the internet user's blog , which has also been inappropriately linked to as the only reference for this 'chart' The pictures are also original research creations - Other, historical references are again simply synthesized original research.

  • Delete, per nomination. The main problem is the chart absolutely appears to be original research. This information would need to be published in a third-party source, (not simply on a blog) and then referenced here to meet notability, and verifiability policies. How can an article about a topic be notable enough to have its own entry in Wikipedia if there isn't a single published source to reference? Brando130 (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, no secondary sources, effectively a copyright violation (though curing that wouldn't make it an appropriate article topic). Huon (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep to judge notability sometimes involves more subjectivity than we would like to admit. There are shades of gray in life. Some Wikipedia editors seem to apply a higher standard of proof of notability to articles dealing with non-canonical subjects like astrology. There is a form of bias that originates in a type of "informed prejudice". It is the basis of all "I know better" pronouncements. This type of bias needs to be kept in check in a world where the information being judged is harder to judge than the person making the judgement thinks it is. The astrological literature, being non-canonical, is not organised in terms of reference articles as is the case of most canonical research subjects, which then serves as a springboard for the notability of the original research. If you read the historical evidence presented, it will become clear the argument made about the birth of the Union is legitimate, with plenty of references to historical literature. In fact the SAMVA USA chart is based on the research of both a historian and an astrologer. This chart is identical in nature to arguments made for any other time proposed as being the birth of the country. For instance, the chart advocated by the late David Solte for the USA is very similar, as may be seen in the section on USA horoscopes in the Mundane astrology article. Disagree as you will about the merits of such claims or the astrological interpretation offered for each horoscope, but please also consider that for those people doing such research, the work is dead serious. The originality has been established in fliers, articles, classes, discussion boards, seminars, etc. As such, please consider that a survey article of the main findings is considered informative for those who follow astrology. Indeed, Wikipedia has a policy to approve any subject matter even if the scientific content is held controversial by those who do not believe in it. If it is a part of the intellectual life it becomes a valid subject matter for Wikipedia. Finally, the copyright issue could be addressed by rewriting and shortening and then giving the reference to the more detailed exposition externally. Odin 85th gen (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
"Disagree as you will about the merits of such claims or the astrological interpretation offered for each horoscope, but please also consider that for those people doing such research, the work is dead serious." The problem is Wikipedia is NOT the place to publish this research - this should be referenced in a third-party published source. That is an all-encompassing Wikipedia standard, it is not thrown out for astrology articles. Brando130 (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

*Weak keep though it needs some editing. The history part is somewhat peripheral. The astrology does not seem excessive detail for the subject, and it's hard to say it is less significant or valid than anything else in the subject. The copyvio seems only in the exact reproduction of the actual charts--discussing them is not copyvio. DGG (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete I was asked to take another look, and , yes, it does appear that there are no sources for this except the blog mentioned below. and what does that blog give as it's source?--Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The text itself is taken verbatim from chart's blog, not the reproduced images. Brando130 (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The author has identified an event's date and time that matches with properly referenced history, and used a brand of astrology to see it's significance. Astrology is considered a non-scientific subject, but this shouldn't be the issue undertoned or tabled. This article is importantly notable within two spheres: 1)amongst historians and researchers seeking the event date for the actual birth of the nation USA and 2)astrologers who seek the information for their work that matches with history. Certainly the author uses and promotes a brand of astrology, but that appears inconsequential, since it's being used as a tool to measure the importance of the event, a common thing amongst all brands of astrology. Replyatom (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
"The author has identified an event's date and time that matches with properly referenced history, and used a brand of astrology to see it's significance." - Yes, exactly. original research. Also a little strange that a vote on this chart would be your first ever edit to Wikipedia. Brando130 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Without wp:reliable sources, this article should not exist here. I see no reliable sources, have found none on my own, and frankly can't anticipate that any will be coming in the future. Xymmax (talk) 18:34, 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 Redirected to Shortland Street#Settings and Storylines. Editors are encouraged to merge as appropriate. Pastordavid (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shortland Street Hospital

Shortland Street Hospital (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

N-n fictional hospital. Absolutely no out of universe notability Earthtried1985 (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 07:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete per above discussion. Use whatever is needed to get a consensus to not keep the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:48, 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. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Stain Records

Bad Stain Records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
Chase Stain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
AZ Ska Punk Awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Numbers on napkins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Per WP:N. Sources are all local and/or not independent of the subject. Sources which are independent do not offer significant coverage. swaq 17:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete None of the acts listed appear to be notable (most of the blue links point to unrelated articles; the rest are red links). The only sources in the article aren't enough to pass WP:RS. I also added Chase Stain, the only musician whose blue link actually points in the right direction -- said musician doesn't appear notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I added AZ Ska Punk Awards and Numbers on napkins as two more related articles which seem to fail the notability guidelines. My !vote includes the deletion of these too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 07:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Needs to be sorted out a lot better. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:08, 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 absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 13:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Fraser

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

First, this biography of a (supposedly) living person is entirely unsourced, and has been so for more than one year. Second, while it seems he contributed some lyrics to the songs of Emerson, Lake & Palmer, I do not think that he passes WP:MUSIC, contrary to the findings of the first nomination. He would be notable if he "[h]as credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition", but applying this to every song of the said band seems like over-stressing the principle. B. Wolterding (talk) 07:58, 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 Redirect. If and when notability can be established by reliable sources for the show itself, article may be recreated. Pastordavid (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rational Alchemy

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


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

[edit] Nicholas Stix

The result was Delete. Consensus is that he fails WP:BIO. Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Subject is a barely-noted blogger and freelance journalist. He has not been the subject of any profiles, and has not won any awards, though he has been mentioned in passing in a few articles on other topics. Previously, an editor, possibly Stix himself, made a nuisance of himself by doing nothing but adding links and mentions of Stix to numerous articles.User:70.23.199.239/User:70.23.167.160 This article was created by a brand-new account, and I suspect it's more self-promotion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak delete - the American Daily claims he did win some award, but I couldn't find out what award. Other sources aren't really about him, but passing mentions at best. Unless more information comes up, he fails WP:BIO. Huon (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong KEEP. The article lists six different third-party publications discussing the subject – three books and three articles in three different fields (one author apparently considers the subject an important poet). Nominator asserts, “Subject is a barely-noted blogger …,” but it says here (National Policy Institute) that he was the “project director” of a major report on race in America, and here (Alex Linder) that he is a Jew who interviewed a major neo-Nazi. I just did a Google Books search, and he is mentioned in many other books besides those cited in the WP article. This list cites over 20 publications both influential and obscure, none of which is a blog, in which his articles have appeared. To any impartial observer, he is clearly an influential American journalist, though just as clearly one whose work is controversial and elicits strong emotions. However, being controversial is not a criterion for deletion, and the nominator’s obvious intense hostility towards the subject makes his AfD a violation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 24.90.201.232 (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong KEEP There is no evidence that Stix created or edited the article. He is clearly notable and has been mentioned on and off the blogosphere. Unfortunately, he is a true conservative and isn't too scared to speak his mind and the truth about whtie people, which scares the supposedly neutral but liberally biased editors of wikipedia, at least some of them. Of course, if he were a neo-Nazi, he would instantly get a page, as he would discredit true conservatism and any serious discussions about race that don't just bash whites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comradesandalio (talk • contribs) 21:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - regarding the sources: We have:
    1. The American Daily has a short and uninformative biography, the website given for him is wrong.
    2. Kill the Messenger: The War on Standardized Testing has a one-line mention among lots of other journalists.
    3. I couldn't access Writing Alone and With Others and Rhetoric and Composition as Intellectual Work, but judging from what I could see, the former has a one-line mention, while the latter reviews an article by Stix.
    4. Access to the PDF "Color of crime" was denied.
    5. Into the Mainstream again has a one-line passing mention.
    6. The next two concern a report Stix edited; one is the report itself, the other is a book review.
    7. Finally, another one-sentence mention.
At most three - the biography and the reviews - can be said to be "discussing the subject", and there's hardly any information. When was he born? Where was he educated? Has somebody analyzed his political views? Is he, as some sources suggest, a "white nationalist", or, as another source claims, a "self-anointed protector of black students"? From the sources we have, I can't tell. Google Books gave me just a dozen results, including three of our "sources". In effect, Stix has written quite a lot, but nobody writes about Stix. Huon (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment You can access the PDF by hitting enter in the address bar of the "access denied" page. It requires a referrer from amren.com. But there's no point since he isn't mentioned in the document at all; the SPLJ source just says he quoted it once, which isn't significant enough for mention in an article, let alone anything supporting notability. --Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. Being a prolific online writer means nothing by itself. --Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apparently does a lot of writing, but he hasn't recieved any significant coverage in independant reliable sources required by WP:BIO. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was speedy delete per author's request. faithless (speak) 20:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Megy

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

Not sure it's a hoax so did not send to CSD. Re WP:V cannot find anything referring to this concept. "Megy" seems to be a word/name in the Hungarian language; nothing else evident. Taroaldo (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. The hungarian word has no conenction to the gesture. Reads like an obvious hoax, I'd say, but hoaxes aren't covered by the CSD. Anyway, "no sources" and "unverifiable" means deletion. Huon (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, thanks! Don't know why I added the pointless csd comment - subconscious notion, maybe. ;) --- Taroaldo (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This gesture has roots in Trinidadian culture and its name was not derived based on a word. Due to its nature, it has not found itself to be documented or labeled in any text as it is a fairely recent developement. It is also only practiced by a certain age group (mainly adolecents) in the country. Any cultural expert in Trinidad and Tobago with knowledge on adolecent sub-culture will be able to validate this article. --- Matcityus


Valid articles should not be removed due to cultural ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matcityus (talk • contribs) 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - unfortunately, Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. Unless one of the cultural experts on Trinidadian adolescent sub-culture has written something about this hand gesture we can cite as a source, I don't see how we're supposed to have an article about it. Huon (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As Huon said, information in Wikipedia must meet criteria for verifiability. No editor on Wikipedia knows everything and we cannot simply make assumptions about things which we cannot verify. Conversely, if we know something with certainty it does us no good if we cannot demonstrate verifiability to others. The same criteria are used for each AfD, regardless of the subject matter. --- Taroaldo (talk) 23:53, 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 delete. Singularity 06:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Age of Knowledge

Golden Age of Knowledge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

At present, article is only sourced to self-referential primary sources affiliated with the Church of Scientology, the publisher of these works. I could not find significant discussion of the article's subject matter in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. I could not find any mention of "Golden Age of Knowledge" in any books or in a news archive search, or a search of scholarly works. In addition, zero hits came up in searches of InfoTrac. If this subject matter has been significantly discussed/analyzed in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources to satisfy WP:NOTE - I have not been able to find any mention in searches of multiple different types of indices of secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Church of Scientology merchandising (or other link, see below). Without independent sources, there's no way we can write an article on this topic. With only primary sources the most we can do is add a mention on one of the Scientology pages covering the church's commercial operations. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect Delete per Sheffi. It's not about a Golden Age of anything. It's about some merchandise for sale. Mandsford (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: If there is nothing of value here and zero independent sources, then why redirect, instead of just Delete? Cirt (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment You got a point there. Why should "Golden Age of Knowledge" take a person to a scientology article? Mandsford (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Good point. Delete for lack of secondary sources, and merge a mention (if necessary) into an appropriate Scientology article. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising unless reliable sources are provided. Terraxos (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Currently none of the good stuff about this event and program are RS usable on Wikipedia. AndroidCat (talk) 21:10, 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 speedily deleted by Alvestrand (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) as WP:CSD#G12 (copyvio) at 06:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC). cab (talk) 06:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ucweb

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

Appears to be a direct copy and paste of another page on the web and likely fails WP copyright policies. InDeBiz1 (talk) 05:58, 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 Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Paul Santoro

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

Article is about a non-notable mob figure. InDeBiz1 (talk) 05:50, 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. John254 01:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Jaffray

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

Appears to fail WP:N, definitely fails WP:V. Wizardman 05:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Appears to be much better now, I'll let the afd continue though I'm now satisfied. Wizardman 21:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I added some references. I realize that notability is not inherited, but the Ontario Cancer Institute (part of Princess Margaret Hospital, itself part of the University Health Network) and the University of Toronto are both leading research institutions. --Eastmain (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Named chair and head of department at research hospital. Google Scholar search for "DA Jaffray" [46] finds articles with 363 and 260 citations, a further three with over a hundred citations, and a further 11 with over 50 citations. Medline lists a total of 92 publications. The subject seems to meet WP:PROF. Not my area so willing to change my mind if fresh evidence is brought. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Espresso Addict's comments. Nsk92 (talk) 21:55, 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 Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guatemala Street

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

Article is about a street that appears to be non-notable for any major landmarks, historical impact, or anything else that would justify it having its own Wikipedia article. InDeBiz1 (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - apparently it's mentioned in a poem by Jorge Luis Borges, but that doesn't make it notable. Boregs' claim of Guatemala Street being the site of the "mythical founding of Buenos Aires" seems to be at odds with our article on the barrio. Our decision here should also be applied to Serrano Street, Paraguay Street and Gurruchaga Street. Huon (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This appears to be a clumsy interpretation of Borges, a well-known fantasist. The final lines of the cited poem in fact declare Buenos Aires to be eternal and not ever "founded" at all. In other words, the entire poem is metaphorical. It is certainly not a claim sufficient for our purposes. --Dhartung | Talk 23:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:48, 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 delete. Singularity 06:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of conscious hip hop artists

List of conscious hip hop artists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list appears to be original research. What, exactly, does the "list of conscious hip hop artists" entail? What does the phrase "conscious hip hop artists" mean? I work in the music / radio industry and have never heard this prhase used. As such, I've nominated this article for deletion as original research. InDeBiz1 (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete I don't know if the list creator means artists who are alive, breathing, and able to think for themselves, or contribute to the community at large (as in socially conscious) in a positive way. Whatever it is, I'm ultimately confused. Nate • (chatter) 04:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not sure what state 2Pac is in (first on this list) but I'm sure it isn't conscious. Unencyclopedic and unclear Nick Connolly (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete semi-frequently used phrase in the hip hop world on the same level of vagueness as "next level". JuJube (talk) 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. We do have an article on this topic. It's actually a very commonly used term in hip-hop circles, and refers to artists whose lyrics are "socially conscious" in some sense (dealing with politics, racism or sexism, problems faced in urban communities, etc.). Conscious hip-hop is often thought of as the antithesis of gangsta rap. I think this list is inherently POV though and can never be otherwise. Whether an MC is "conscious" or not is a fairly subjective matter, and some MC's - 2Pac being perhaps the prime example - clearly fall into the "conscious" category at one point in their career but not so much later, so I don't know what you do about that. As someone who knows hip-hop fairly well I agree with most of the entries on the list, but it's still basically impossible for the list to be NPOV which means we should delete it. It might be possible to change the article title to something similar but less POV and thus keep a lot of the content, which is admittedly useful.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
But what if there were two other reliable sources that pointedly argued said artist was not a conscious rapper? I can easily imagine some hip-hop publication arguing, for example, that Jadakiss "has done some conscious hip-hop," however in general most would not consider him a conscious artist. As I said the term "conscious" is far too subjective, but the article title gives the impression that everyone on the list is indisputably a conscious artist which is not the case. I would not mind having a list along these lines but I think it needs to be called something else, though I don't have any big ideas offhand.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
And then there is the matter of what to do with the fact that the early gangsta rappers were not slow to self-identify as "reality rap", hence linking themselves to Chuck D's dictum that hip hop was "black CNN" and linking themselves to the same lineage of socio-political commentary tracing all the way back to Melle Mel. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment With all due respect, you'd be wrong with your assertion of WP:IDONTKNOWIT. I have enough experience in the radio / music industry that IF this were a commonly used phrase and this article WASN'T original research, I would have heard the phrase. But, as it is, this article is the very first time I have ever seen it or heard it. I stand by my nomination. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that this should be deleted, but honestly I'm guessing you are not all that familiar with hip-hop if you have never heard this term before. It is incredibly, incredibly common in hip-hop circles. Many folks will claim they only listen to "conscious" rap. Other terms have been used in the past (for example "message rap"), and other similar terms are used today ("backpack rap" is also a synonym). An article on conscious rap is very much warranted and is not OR, it's just that this list is problematic. If you don't believe me look again at the links Pixelface provided.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Considering that I program a hip-hop radio station...... --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe you, but perhaps this term slipped under your radar somehow. Again, look at the sources provided by Pixelface, or just google "conscious hip-hop" which comes up with 83,000 hits including a bunch of stuff that's relevant right off the bat. A Google books search is also revealing (see this chapter from a book by Michael Eric Dyson, the title of which was partially taken from a Nas lyric: "Cause it's trendy to be the conscious MC / But next year, who knows what we'll see?"). Anyhow this really is a notable if admittedly vaguely defined term which is referenced all the time by all kinds of folks in the hip-hop world. I teach a urban history course at a college in the Bronx where we listen to a ton of hip-hop and my students (generally 8-10 years younger than myself) are quite familiar with the term, as are my friends who are hip-hop heads. I'm surprised you haven't heard of it, though possibly it's used more frequently in certain regions of the country. Anyhow, sort of a side point, but relevant if someone is questioning the legitimacy of the concept rather than the list (which seems to be the case for some of the delete voters).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep but per Pixelface's comment above, the article needs to be sourced and vetted, otherwise including someone on there without a source would be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR (and yes, that means a lot of work for somebody). In addition, an introduction needs to be added otherwise not only might WP:IDONTKNOWIT come into play, but you might see someone trying to create a list of "unconscious" hip hop artists. 23skidoo (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Where's the notability here? Arbitrary, unreferenced list. Brando130 (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Even if we were told what a "conscious" hip-hop artist is, it's an indiscriminate list. A list of unconscious hip hop artists would be more interesting. Mandsford (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, "conscious" meaning alive and awake, or what? KleenupKrew (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, cannot ever be more than a conglomeration of POV determinations. Unless there's a "2Pac Conscious Hip-Hop Award" someday .... --Dhartung | Talk 00:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd say we've reached a consensus? 8 delete votes, 1 keep, and a weak keep? --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This will almost certainly be deleted, but we need to let the AfD run its course I think - which is five days as a rule - and let it be closed by a non-involved admin. I don't think this is a WP:SNOW candidate if that's what you were suggesting.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm not even a big hip-hop fan (more of a heavy metal guy) and yet I have come across the term. Someone above has provided several reliable sources on the apparent existence of this genre. There are many other lists of artists from a particular genre that are similarly unreferenced but that's not cause for deletion. Take a look at the list of folk metal bands for an example of how a list like this can be improved with the proper format and sources. That list was completely unreferenced too just a few weeks ago and then I came along to work on it. There's no reason to think that this list of conscious hip-hop cannot similarly be improved. I suspect most of you have not heard of folk metal either. --Bardin (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Would that it were so. Your superlative work has shown that folk metal is a robust niche genre with definable boundaries. Conscious hip hop is a much more nebulous concept, referring as it does to to lyrical content which at some point someone has deemed to be dealing with social issues. This is a case for an article on the subject, with notable examples (actually Message rap would be a much better article IMO, someone click through for me with a merge and I'll write the rest up), but any list will be a repository of loosely associated acts, and might as well be "List of hip hop artists". Are we a directory? 86.44.28.245 (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Per the talk page comment: Fork of deleted list at Conscious hip hop, has all the same problems. Uncited, potentially infinite, based on people's personal perceptions, unencyclopediac. The list was in question for a month and a half at Conscious hip hop without one single cite being added, and was deleted. This article is approaching two months in existence, still no cites. Previous discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of golden age hip hop artists which closed Delete also applies here. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Conscious hip hop is definitely a notable genre/term but this list is a mess! The Game? Obie Trice? Ja Rule? What is the criterion for inclusion on this list, recording one semi-thoughtful track? Additionally, the nominator needs to go back to school if he considers himself to be a musical scholar but has never heard the term before. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:05, 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. Singularity 06:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Wilson (Irish politician)

Roy Wilson (Irish politician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local councillor in Northern Ireland. Only ref is to his party's website, so he fails WP:N; as a local councillor he fails WP:BIO BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:39, 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 speedily deleted (A7) by Alexf. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WhatIfGaming

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

Non-notable gaming site with no legit refs. Created by someone who has a possible Conflict of Interest in the article. BoL (Talk) 03:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


Response: I think you're severely mistaken, and I'm just a reader--so there are no "conflicts of interest." The site gets nearly 1.5 million hits, and is sponsored by all the major gaming sites, and has many things coming up. Also, do your proper searches via N4G before nominating it and labeling it as a "non-notable" aka corporate fanboy gaming site. Seriously, grow up. Also see the AwStats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:March08awstats.jpg. And learn to use N4G.com--as they have had countless articles on there that got above 950 degrees. Also, they're doing an interview with Rockstar soon. Also, their Alexa score is high--showing a lot of IE users (15% of their readership) go there. Google analytics shows the rank as high as well. Learn to search. This isn't an attack. It's telling you to learn something before you go around reporting stuff you don't even have the facts straight for. Also stop harassing me and deal with the fact that you messed up. And they are referenced by COUNTLESS sites including maxconsole, jeuxfrance, and JOYSTIQ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGamingeff (talk • contribs) 03:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mean they have to be notable. WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N. BoL (Talk) 03:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
CommentDude - calm down theres no need to tell anyone else to grow up. First of all there are no reliable sources that arent biased. Show me the source that states it gets 1.5 million hits. By the way - before you tell anyone to go "learn something" you clearly have no reliable sources. BTW where did that graph come from? Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 03:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


Oh okay..so see I thought them being referenced by other blogs like Joystiq, maxconsole, GoNintendo, (and sites like PSU) gave it some credibility. Also the graph came from the owner through a press forum, which you guys don't have access to, but I do since I handle press stuff for the community site the owner revealed it on. Also look at Google Analysis ...and the Alexa (showing that 15% of the users are IE users and visit it)...the ranks are fairly high. Also, they have ads with Sony for infamous and littlebigplanet. Something I just noticed. That doesn't happen out of the sky. Also check all their posts on News 4 Gamers (a gaming community site). They are very well established. I can't show you sources for their numbers...what gaming site wiki SHOWS that? This is seriously ridiculous to be honest. It's like asking 1UP to show their "reliability" sources. They've been around the web, and so had this site..especially on N4G. I can't really "add sources" anymore than I have. WP:Blogs.

What I can do is removed the # sources. But the site itself is notable and reliable.

"which you guys don't have access to" Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 04:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


I removed the # references completely. The rest are just facts about the site itself if that's fine J. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGamingeff (talk • contribs) 04:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, they have ads with Sony for infamous and littlebigplanet

I could get a ad with sony, if I paid $1000 million PS can you sign cause its creating heaps of edit conflicts Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 04:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I actually just see that GoogleBots are rejected ping to the site itself..and the site doesn't have an Alexa tracker..but an AwStats one. So, the only way to prove it is if the website owner disclosed the stats themselves via AwStats. If it helps---they did MENTION their numbers in one post (I think). But I removed all the # references.

—Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures comment added by DavidGamingeff (talk • contribs)

Haha, thanks for telling me how to do that. DavidGamingeff (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's up to you J. If you need to delete it, then delete it. But I just have to say that...the article is just facts about the site itself, and they have a ton of news posts, references from Maxconsole, joystiq, XBOX360 fanboy, and n4g + PSU---basically on a lot of places and have interviews going on with huge game publishers. As for the number sources, sorry I disclosed closed information not available to public. Should have known better. Aside from that, that's all I got. Thanks for hearing me out. DavidGamingeff (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Inconsistent sources are being raised here, I searched N4G and the site appears ot be scraping articles FROM this site, not writing ABOUT this site. I then searched the archives at Joystiq and found nothing but scrapes of the scrapes from N4G under a search heading of "Google Results" when looking for the phrase "WhatIfGaming". On 360 Fanboy I could only find this single trivial mention [52] which provides no real context for notability. The other mentions didn't offer anything better. The Alexa rank you are talking about is currently sitting at a one week average of 924,950. To compare, Joystiq.com sits at 3,480 (lower is higher traffic). I would venture to say that the kind of traffic numbers you're talking about wouldn't make something notable on that alone anyway, even if the traffic stats weren't WP:OR original research. To continue, I can't locate any reliable, non-trivial sources to assert any kind of notability at this time using either yahoo or google, in fact there is very little on the site at all in search results; many of the results in the first few pages reference this article and the related discussion. In fact google has weighted N4G's scrape of RSS items from this site at a higher position than the domain itself [53]. Confirmed by a whois [54] the site itself is only one month or so old. This all adds up to me as failing WP:N by a wide margin. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's written like an advertisement and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. I know it can be annoying to hear someone call a site "non-notable", but telling editors to "grow up" and saying "learn to search" and "deal with the fact you messed up" is not going to persuade people to keep this article. --Pixelface (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's simply an article about a gaming website with facts about it. I took out the # references etc. It should not be deleted IMO, but w/e. Also I already stated they are blocking alexa sprawlers--etc. So those stats are inaccurate that you're getting from Alexa. Refer to their FAQ. Also you aren't searching right if all you could find was 1 mention. And even so, those huge media owned sites don't just link to sites that they know are not notable. Also I stated already they blocked google sprawlers apparently, so using a link:http:// won't work...and bring up minimum results. The site has amazing content, it has references, and it has notability. Maybe not according to Wikipedia standards, but to gaming standards it definitely does. I'll keep arguing this same position for any other requests to delete it (so refer back to this post again and again), but I refuse to let it be deleted unless an admin feels otherwise. Consider this my statement for all delete requests now. DavidGamingeff (talk) 06:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read wikipedia's notability standards WP:N and wikipedia's notability standards for websites WP:WEB.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, if these articles are so easy to find and in such abundance you could clear this all up very quickly by linking to them directly in this debate. Please do not link to the main site, link only to the exact articles you are talking about.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


Okay Torchwood. I read the WP:N more, and I have some questions so we can resolve this. I understand that WP's guideline of notability, is not necessarily the same thing as fame, etc etc. A website can be famous..and not be detailed on Wikipedia unless, if I read correctly, outside 3rd party sources specifically speak about that subject in detail. Now..is this to say that...any subject matter, which has not extensively or at all covered by a WP:Reliable source is not notable enough to be added to the Wikipedia encyclopedia? If I got this all right, I will agree to deletion because I was under the impression that we can add info about a website.....in general...like a biography of literally any website we choose. Because I'm not really understanding your reason for asking for it to be deleted. It kind of sounds like to me that you're trying to delete information about a site's bground, etc---and claiming the site is a huge farce..and copied/pasted...and completely fake and unreal, which is just not true at all. DavidGamingeff (talk) 06:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the article for A7 deletion because of your comment at AfD. Yes, you are reading the notability guideline correctly. All articles need to have extensive coverage in reliable third party sources. When the site gains some of these you are free to recreate the article citing the new sources.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Seems to be an advertisement. Redrocket (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's background information on a site. How is it an "advertisement." I don't understand your logic. Since when was describing a site, it's review policy, and all that--an advertisement? Btw, n4g is a community of gamers who only approve news they believe to be noteworthy from reliable sources (strict guidelines) and requires 10 approvals PER article. Here are just the MAIN ones this site is covered in (Excluding reference sources under other stories already--which are countless):

http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-126912.aspx http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-131373.aspx http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-128215.aspx http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-127397.aspx http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-127389.aspx http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-126909.aspx http://www.n4g.com/NewsPending-126913.aspx

That's literally in an excess of 70 people who approve anything the site has to say. DavidGamingeff (talk)

How is it an "advertisement"? Because it's written like an advertisement. Instead of trying to argue with every single person who disagrees with you, why don't you just cleanup the article and add your references to it? Redrocket (talk) 06:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I just got word from Torchwood: "I tagged the article for A7 deletion because of your comment at AfD. Yes, you are reading the notability guideline correctly. All articles need to have extensive coverage in reliable third party sources. When the site gains some of these you are free to recreate the article citing the new sources.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)"

I agree to the terms of deleting this. I just understood the guidelines. Thank you torchwood who! I appreciate your awesomeness in the matter. DavidGamingeff (talk)

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

The result was delete. Singularity 06:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Power of the Dragonflame (single)

Power of the Dragonflame (single) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I created this article like 2 years ago. I thought there was a single called "Power of the Dragonflame". Well that was a promo-release, and every Rhapsody album by Limb Music Productions had a promo-release. We have an article for the album so there is no necessity to keep this one. --Neo139 (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk"
  • Speedy Delete as G7, "Author requests deletion" No major edits from initial version of the article. -Verdatum (talk) 17:10, 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 delete. Singularity 06:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Nacirema Dream

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums require substantial coverage in reliable sources. 1st source gives very little info about album, 2nd source isn't about the album. Unable to locate additional reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete It's a page about an upcoming album, that we're not sure of when it will actually come. That's not enough to warrant an article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete: Nowhere near enough coverage to justify an article about an unreleased album.Kww (talk) 17:12, 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 Keep and Moved to Center for Catholic Studies (University of St. Thomas). Rewrite/cleanup needed. Pastordavid (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Studies

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

This article reads more like an entry out of a course catalog or brochure than an encylopedia entry on the University of St. Thomas CathStudies program. Futhermore, rather than covering the discipline and impact of Catholic Studies, which is featured at numerous colleges around the country, it discusses only the UST program. Apparently, it was created by a user seeking only to promote the program (username: catholicstudies). I am a Catholic Stuides major at UST, but Wikipedia is not a guidebook, and I don't believe this article has any merit at all as presently written. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. An article on Catholic studies in general would be great, but there is little salvageable material in this article. Some editor(s) have obviously put a lot of work into this but, just as the nominator says, it amounts in its present form to nothing more than a brochure. This is totally unencyclopedic: such material belongs on a page for prospective students on a school's website, not here. Nick Graves (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Change recommendation to Keep, rename and rewrite. There are at least two reliable sources that provide independent, significant coverage of the program, so it seems notable enough. Elkman's suggested renaming to University of St. Thomas Center for Catholic Studies is the most suitable option, due to its specificity. A future article on Catholic studies would be appropriate only if it focused on the discipline in general, rather than a specific program. Nick Graves (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment At best this is a move to Center for Catholic Studies. It certainly is not a general article on Catholic studies as a discipline. --Dhartung | Talk 03:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • transwiki to wikiversity--Emesee (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • DELETE It is unlike any other wikipedia article i have seen before. Not up to Wikipedia's standards. Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice, as all above; an essay or a brochure about a particular programme. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to something like Center for Catholic Studies or Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas, so that that title makes it clear that it's about the Catholic Studies program at only one university. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (If kept, the move needs to be done.) This is a course catalog or advertisement; it is not an encyclopedia article. (At least it isn't a blatanat copyright violation of the web-pages, which is about all it has going for it.) No independent sourcing is present to indicate that an encyclopedia article is possible. Very few specific programs at a college merit an encyclopedia entry, and I see nothing to make me think this is one of them. GRBerry 01:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename and rewrite. Delete (or move if delete fails). Obvious advertisement. TrickyApron (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite - Is the subject of secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject, like the St. Paul Pioneer Press [55] and the Minneapolis Star Tribune [56] [57]. --Oakshade (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite as Oakshade said. An article has to start somewhere, and whereas many articles start with a one-sentence "stub" (in Wikipedia terminology) this one started with comprehensive information on one program in the subject. The rewrite should remove specifics like course numbers, but keep topics like study in Rome that may be common to similar programs at many universities. Fg2 (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, rewrite and move. The article as it is currently written doesn't have any merit, however there is significant independent coverage with which to rewrite the article. A better title would be Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas. The article needs a bit of work but it should be kept. ~ Eóin (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Rename to University of St. Thomas Center for Catholic Studies (a more official and less ambiguous name), then rewrite to prune a lot of the material about specific courses that need to be taken. The program itself sounds like it's notable, and the study-abroad program, Master of Arts degree, and the two institutes appear to be a relatively distinctive feature of this center. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree - Rename and prune of the excessive detail of particular modules. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, Rename, and Stubbify. Agree present article is not an appropriate Wikipedia article or appropriately named, but a renamed article that refers specifically to the University of St. Thomas Center for Catholic Studies would be appropriate because there are sufficient reliable sources on the program to meet the relevant notability criteria. Accordingly, renamed article should be stubbified and OR and self-promotional catalog-type material removed. --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and Wikify: Great topic, definitely good for Wikipedia, but bear in mind that it reads more like a guidebook, let's fix it up, maybe? THE KC (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete; one particular program at one particular school (which already has it's own, fine article) does not need to be covered in such detail; we are not a course catalog or an advertising brochure repository. A general article on the topic would be interesting; but this is not that and doesn't really have much information that could become the basis of a general article, in my opinion -- perhaps other schools have widely different criteria. I'd also look for more reliable sources beyond just the Minnesota newspapers, since this is a Minnesota school I'm not surprised those exist, but does anyone else take notice? At the very least rename, per others above, without redirecting this term. -- phoebe / (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as a general topic. It is salvageable and notable. FYI: I'm an ex-RC. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as vandalism/hoax. ... discospinster talk 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diego Caupaphara

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

seems A hoax, no source to support it Matthew_hk tc 02:31, 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 – multiple independent references in reliable sources. KrakatoaKatie 01:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lending Club

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. Has a few links but they seem to be self references, press releases and trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-Notable. Also, per Hu12.--RyRy5 Got something to say? 02:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. All of the sources and external links are from the company itself (except for a single USA Today article, which wouldn't load for me, and which may or may not have had specific coverage of the company). That's not sufficient to establish notability. Nick Graves (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep > 100 instances of RS coverage including such non-notable and unreliable sources souch as MSN Money, USA Today, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, among others. It's not yet at the level of Prosper but its received significant secondary coverage. Not in the article doesn't mean it doesn't exist. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 04:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Those seem to be aggregated from /PRNewswire/MyWire/AccessMyLibrary.com which is all NN self publish/PR sites. --Hu12 (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
AccessMyLibrary reproduces articles from print publications, much in the same way that ProQuest does. It's a perfectly valid search site, very useful for those who don't have subscriptions to larger, better ones. Celarnor Talk to me 15:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
CNN Money, Denver Post, Boston Globe. None are from AML, all are reliable sources with independent coverage, not press releases. The existence of some press releases doesn't invalidate the other coverage. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 15:50, 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 Speedy Delete as G2 (test page). The author has copied Sporting Clube de Portugal and tried to change the player names, but has given up after a few. The team actually probably exist, but as a reserve side, are non-notable. Black Kite 07:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Udinese Calcio Reserves

Udinese Calcio Reserves (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

In Italy, they called Primavera, but the page only contain a incomplete squad list, and some players were copied from Sporting's article Matthew_hk tc 02:16, 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 speedy delete per the speedy deletion A7 criterion. Rudget (review) 11:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ultraform (Artist)

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

Written by the artist himself, then speedied [58], then recreated by the artist himself. Fails notability due to WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:single-purpose account, WP:MUSIC, and probably several more guidelines we could throw at him. Let's delete this and salt it forever. Qworty (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per CSD A7 (G4 only applies to recreation after community conseneus to delete), and as nom says, salt forever!!!!! And block the user per UAA. BoL (Talk) 03:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per above —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fattyjwoods (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep--JForget 23:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Megan Marshak

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

Biography about a non-notable person. Marshak has no notability beyond the death of Nelson Rockefeller and various conspiracy theories related to that. Delete and redirect to death section of Rockefeller article. Dual Freq (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: It is not known if the person is currently living or dead. Proper spelling of last name may be Marshak or Marshack, but the subject is so non-notable that both spellings seem to be used in articles relating to Rockefeller's death. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I remember when this happened, and believe me, it made worldwide news when the Vice President died on top of this woman. This is a definitely notable keeper in the history of the Vice Presidency, like Cheney shooting that Republican lawyer in the face or the Burr/Hamilton duel or Agnew or Calhoun resigning. Vice Presidents are inherently notable and whenever they do things like shoot people or die on top of them the other person involved becomes automatically notable. Qworty (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "die on top of them"? None of that is mentioned in the sources listed. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • You've read all 270 news articles in the eight minutes since I posted the link to them? You are a fast reader! The poor girl was pinned beneath his naked body when he died of the heart attack. It took her a long time to get out and when she finally did she was so scared out of her wits she didn't even call an ambulance. She called her friend and neighbor instead. All of this has been in the public record for decades. It should all be in the article. Qworty (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I've been down this road before. I did a lexis search last year when this came up and I could find no articles in the last 25+ years about her beyond his death. All you've mentioned above is tabloid / conspiracy theory stuff. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Uh, excuse me, but if you've already researched this, then you are aware that the ambulance workers found Rockefeller sprawled in the nude. How many men dictate to their secretaries in the nude? She just happened to be taking Gregg shorthand from a naked millionaire politician when his heart seized up . . . right? Nobody seriously believes that. Qworty (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
            • If you want to cite a reliable source that information came from, then add it to Rockefeller's article. The discussion here is about her notability, and she is clearly not notable beyond Rockefeller, hence the suggestion to return to a redirect.I'm not saying to remove any information about her from Rockefeller's article. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This person has an intriguing connection to the death of a vice president. The fact that there are conspiracy theories about her tends to bolster the argument of notability. I can see where people would want to know more about her.--76.205.25.141 (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Her name was in the news for weeks after this event. She is notable. --rogerd (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • further evidence of notability: 270 news articles about her dating from 1979 onward: [60] Qworty (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • What is the correct spelling of her last name? Marshak or Marshack? Is she still alive? Where is she today? All of those refer to Rockefeller's death, she is not notable beyond his death. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I think Marshack is correct, but a lot of sources did use Marshak. This does speak to your point. --Dhartung | Talk 02:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I think that participating in the death of a Vice President of the United States is pretty much the height of notability. She's only slightly less notable than Lee Harvey Oswald, and certainly more notable than Monica Lewinsky, who was involved in an executive-branch impeachment but not in an executive-branch death. Qworty (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Uh, "participating in the death"? You can't be serious. --Dhartung | Talk 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I've never been more serious about anything in my life. Burr killed Hamilton with a pistol. This girl killed Rockefeller with . . . well, do I have to spell it out for you? Granted, she didn't do it intentionally. But it is no less notable than the Burr/Hamilton duel in Vice Presidential history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qworty (talk • contribs) 02:47, April 7, 2008
            • You have some very strange ideas about cause, effect, and personal agency here. --Dhartung | Talk 03:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Nelson Rockefeller. Not notable independently. JJL (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Nelson Rockefeller. No independent notability (she has stayed wholly out of the news media for 30 years since, impressive accomplishment). As there were no criminal charges, no tell-all bio, and nothing but tabloid speculation, we have no business having this article under WP:BLP1E. --Dhartung | Talk 02:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Like Qworty, I'm old enough to remember Megan Marshak. Rockefeller was no longer the VP when he died, although he was still quite prominent because of his wealth. There's nothing I see in the article that violates WP:BLP. She was quite notable in 1979, and as I understand Wikipedia rules, it is not required that she be notable in 2008. Mandsford (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Nelson Rockefeller. This is a textbook case of WP:ONEEVENT. Jfire (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    See Dolly Kyle Browning, and most people don't even know her name whereas most people of a certain age do know Marshak's. Sometimes one event is all that's needed for notability. Tvoz |talk 15:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I know you said don't invoke WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but your argument is a textbook case of that too. Jfire (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Her notability is no less than that of a presidential candidate's step-grandmother or the fling of a Congressman or many others whose sole notability is their proximity to power and whose names are known to the public (over age 50). This article is a stub, but it is well-sourced as far as it goes - far better than many. As for the spelling of her name, I believe this was determined a while ago, but I'll have to check it again as I don't recall - that's not a reason to delete. And I believe she is alive and working as a journalist, but I do not have a reliable source on that at present. (And since when is there a requirement that the current whereabouts of a subject be known for them to be considered notable?) Finally, last time I looked the New York Times was not a tabloid, and several of the source articles talk about her delaying the emergency services call and calling Ponchita Pierce first. By the way, neither this article, nor the section in Nelson Rockefeller, talk about unsourced conspiracy theories, nor should they. She's notable without them. Tvoz |talk 03:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • This article is never going to be anything more than a coat rack / fork of Rockefeller's death section, as it has been in the past. Since there is very little biographical information known about Marshack/Marshak, (like the correct spelling of her last name or pretty much anything else beyond Rockefeller's death), this article will be nothing more than a dedicated article about Rockefeller's death filled with uncited and unverifiable speculation about the circumstances of his death. Here is an example of this article's past form and its likely future. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I object to that, Dual - that version dates back to 2006 and all of that speculative material has been scrupulously kept out of the article since then, during the times it has been a standalone piece. When I had a little time I did some research, as you will recall, and came up with a bunch of references verifying her role and I have stated several times that speculation and theory do not belong there. You have no legitimate basis on which to say that this is how the article is going to be in the future. My point is that it is a stub, and should be allowed to stand so that others can expand it if more information becomes available as it well might, considering her proximity to a former Vice President of the United States. This is a low priority stub, so right, I haven't had a chance to dedicate time to researching more on it. But I am not the only one editing the encyclopedia who has an interest in this historic time, and I believe more material may surface that can expand this piece, such as a new biography of Rockefeller. That's why we have the concept of stubs. WHat harm is this one causing the project? Tvoz |talk 23:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
        • This article began as a coatrack in 2004 and the late 2006 version I linked above was hardly different. I think you made my point about notability by saying there might be a "new biography of Rockefeller". Its true that Rockefeller might have a new bio someday, but will there ever be a new biography of Marshack? Unless she writes one, no one else will and since she's managed to avoid the press for 29 year, I don't see anything new coming out on this anytime soon. Right now all an encyclopedia needs to say about Marshack is already at Nelson Rockefeller#Death. Wikipedia will certainly not be harmed by deleting and redirecting to Nelson Rockefeller#Death. If any actual biographical information about Marshack ever shows up, like parents, home town, education, correct spelling of last name, and employment history than at that point the issue could be revisited. Right now, its just one more page on a watchlist to continually revert so it doesn't turn back into this. It will never be more than a stub or a coatrack about Rockefeller's death. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
          • And since 2006 there were periods of time when the article stood alone - and it has never devolved into the original inappropriate text. Furthermore, the death section in Rockefeller has not devolved into innuendo or conspiracy theory either and surely if you were right it would have. So your argument really doesn't hold water. Further, "continually revert"? Are you serious? There have not been so many reverts that put any strain on anyone's watchlist. Come watch Barack Obama if you want to see strain on a watchlist. Come on. Research for a biography about Rockefeller could easily provide new material about her, and all you're saying here is that there's no harm in redirecting it. I'm saying there's no harm in letting it stand - and you haven't shown that there is. I don't think this is the most important thing in the world, but unless there's some harm to the project by keeping it I don't see any reason to remove it. If your watchlist is too long - and believe me, I know how that feels - then remove it. There are other people who will keep an eye on it and not allow it to turn into what you oppose. Tvoz |talk 02:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
            • I don't see anything here that shows she is notable beyond Rockefeller's death as stated in the nomination. You've had over a year to research this and we still have nothing but a stub about Rockefeller's death with some "speculation" in the press that's supposed to be a biography of Marshack. She's not notable enough for anyone to write a biography about, even in 1979. Right now, even as a stub, it's an article about Rockefeller's death. Since that's all it will ever be, it should be redirected to Nelson Rockefeller#Death. And I don't think WP:NOHARM is a valid reason to keep an article. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect. I doubt the bio could be completed with anything noteworthy, and she is not noteworthy beyond the one incident. MrPrada (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect. She wasn't Wiki-notable in 1979 and that hasn't changed. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    Really? That's not the way I remember 1979 - why did so many respectable newspaper articles and tv news reports include her name, and talk about her if she wasn't notable? Are you familiar with the stub about Fanne Foxe (and please don't invoke WP:othercrapexists)? Tvoz |talk 14:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep That there isn't a lot more to say about her doesn't mean there shouldn't be an entry about her in the project. A person doesn't have to continually reassert their notability - once it is established, the person is notable. Marshak's notability was firmly established at the time of the incident. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 07:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Wikipedia guidelines are very clear that notability does not decay. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. If Monica Lewinsky and Mark David Chapman are relevant, this article is sufficiently relevant as well. The article contributes to the understanding of the scandal, and that should be enough to constitute relevance for a stand-alone article. --Abrech (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • There is no comparison with Marshack and those two people, especially not with Chapman who actually shot and killed someone. There's nothing remotely reliably sourced that places her in the category of assassin. The body of work about Lewinsky and Chapman is much larger than for Marshack and the details in both wikipedia biographies show that. There were very few biographical, personal details about Marshack in the news in 1979 and over the past 29 years there has been essentially no follow up on her unlike Lewinsky and Chapman. Their stories have been revisited numerous times by the media after their initial fame. All notable details about her are directly related to Rockefeller's death and are address adequately there. We don't need a Death of Nelson Rockefeller article and that's all that Marshack's article is. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Wow, I very strongly disagree. Marshack is more notable than Chapman or Lewinski. In all three cases, notability is dependent on an incident with a highly notable person. Obviously, Marshack absolutely didn't plan on killing Rockefeller--it was an accident--but he surely died. Marshack is more notable than Chapman because a dead Vice President of the United States (even a former one) will always be a more notable person than a dead musician. Marshack is more notable than Lewinski because Lewinski never did anything that led to anybody's death. Impeachment, yes, death, no. Finally, for those who claim there was no sex involved in the Rockefeller case, you have to argue that he was in the habit of giving dictation to his female assistant in the nude. That would not only be WP:OR, but a completely absurd case of WP:OR that no rational person would ever believe. Also, it doesn't matter if this happened back in 1979--or 1979 B.C., for that matter. If a woman had done this to a vice pharaoh in Ptolemaic times, you'd better bet it would still be encyclopedic in 2008 A.D. Editors who are arguing that the date is any way significant are guilty of WP:recentism. Qworty (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Lewinsky is still in the news, ten years later while Marshack has not been in the news since 1979. Though Marshack was in the news for a brief period in 1979, no one bothered to write a biography of her at the time, no one ever will. Lewinsky and Chapman have been the subject of several books as well, Marshack has been the subject of no books. The points you have listed about Marshack are a good example of original research and conspiracy theories about Rockefeller's death. I think you prove my point that the article is not about Marshack, but is really about coatracking Rockefeller's article. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have never alleged a conspiracy theory about Rockefeller's death. Where in the world are you getting that? In fact, nobody in this entire AfD discussion has claimed that anybody was out to get Rockefeller, and yet you keep saying conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy. If someone had been trying to kill Rockefeller, then having his pretty assistant screw him to death would certainly be an absurd way to go about it, don't you think? And again, be aware of WP:recentism: Notability does not depend on WHEN an event occurred. The same can be said for the books you cite. If the publishing industry had been as scandal-driven in 1979 as it is today, you can bet your sweet bippy there would've been half-a-dozen books about Marshack in 1979. Are you not aware of the changes in publishing since that time? We can't judge Marshack by the publishing standards of today--that too is a form of WP:recentism. So I don't see any logical underpinnings to your argument here. Most of it is WP:recentism, with a little bit of straw man thrown in, claiming that the article's advocates have stated a conspiracy to kill Rockefeller, when not a single person in this discussion has done so. Qworty (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Straw man? I'm not the one comparing her with assassins like Oswald Booth and Chapman or saying she is more notable than Lewinsky. The only thing we can judge notability by is body of work that a subject has had written about them. We can't use rumors and folklore about Rockefeller's death as a source, we have to use published sources. Since there are essentially no sources of biographical information about Marshack, how would you propose that we write a biography about her? The answer is that we can't. She was not notable enough in '79 to have biographical details published by books, magazines or newspapers and nothing has been published since. As others mentioned above, she wasn't notable in 1979 either. What is notable is Rockefeller's death, that is the one event and it is covered in his article. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you know what straw man means? Please read up on it. As to your other points--Nobody is suggesting we use rumors or folklore in the article. The published reports STATE that Rockefeller was found in the nude. That's not a rumor. That's not folklore. And yes, if Chapman and Lewinsky are going to have their own articles, then Marshack merits one as well. By your own argument, Chapman and Lewinski are nothing but one event people. Why aren't you arguing that their articles be merged respectively into the Lennon and Clinton articles? Do you really believe for a minute that either Chapman or Lewinski would be notable at all if it weren't for one event? How in the world is Chapman notable outside of that one event? Because he was a fan of The Catcher in the Rye and lived for a time in Hawaii? How in the world is Lewinski notable outside of her sex relationship with Bill, most of the details of which are, as you say, heavily "rumored" and "folkloric"? Do you really think she's notable for the handbags she designed afterwards? When we talk policy, we have to apply it evenly, across the board. And you can't possibly argue that Marshack wasn't notable in 1979. Look at all of the published reports! She sure as heck was more notable than Chapman or Lewinski in that year! Why are you trying to erase the historical record? Qworty (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
      • As I said before the published body of work for Chapman and Lewinsky is what makes them notable and provides us with source material. Many stories are in print about both of them. They have books published about them. Their stories were followed up by major media after the events they were associated with were long over. Marshack had none of that. No biographical pieces in 1979, no follow ups. No where are they now notes. No books. Nothing. There is nothing more that can be said about her in the article because nothing about her has been published. We don't need a Circumstances of Nelson Rockefeller's death speculation coatrack article pretending to be a "biography" about Marshack. Judging by your answers, you're not interested in Marshack herself, just the innuendo and rumors associated with his death. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Why do you persist in repeating this false accusation/prediction that the page is or is going to be a speculation coatrack? It is not now and it won't be in the future as long as responsible editors monitor it. If it is too much for your watchlist, then you can be assured that it will remain on others'. Have I not removed anything that approached speculation on this page in the past? If properly sourced information appears, we'll include it. If it isn't properly sourced, we won't, Just like all other articles. Tvoz |talk 01:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
          • You're right. Currently, there is no OR / speculation, but there's also no biography of Marshack either. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Correct. It is, as I have said from the outset, a stub. Like many articles on Wikipedia. And I am not aware of a time-limit for expanding stubs. Tvoz |talk 01:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
              • With no sources, its going to be impossible to come up with an actual biography. All this will ever be is a fork of Rockefeller's death section. Perhaps it should be renamed Nelson Rockefeller's death instead of pretending its a bio. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) That makes no sense. First of all, sources DO exist. Secondly, there is no WP policy that requires this article to be as lengthy as the one on Winston Churchill. Articles are as long as they need to be. Qworty (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. There`s more information than would fit in his article. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you have a specific example with a source so it can be improved? --Dual Freq (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Extensive reliable, verifiable sourcing meets WP:N critera. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am yet another Wikipedian who vividly remembers the news and her name -- after 29 years. She may be famous for just one event, but that event was a major one, and her name continues to show up in news media. Additionally, there may still be more to her story. One of my Google hits on her name is to a review of a biography of cartoonist Charles Addams that names Megan Marshack as one of the women in Addams' life.[61] --Orlady (talk) 20:26, 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. Any useful content could be merged into record collecting, but care should be taken to avoid the no how-to guide and no original research problems. KrakatoaKatie 03:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Music collecting strategies

Music collecting strategies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research. The "references" are mostly examples rather than actual sources of information (including the author's own website). —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 00:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, will merge article skeleton into a new Record collecting#scope of collections section, after deletion. Jidanni (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe transwiki to wikiversity. --Emesee (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete possibly transwiki to wikihow or wikiversity (i'm not too familiar with the latter project). Original Research that reads like a howto article. I'm rather strongly against merging this content. -Verdatum (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
So what would you write in a Record collecting#scope of collections section, or do music collections have no scope, no bounds, no limits? Jidanni (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Will the persons above who stated they find merging an acceptable solution please merge the one or two lines of the article that you find acceptable, and throw away the rest. Thank you. I cannot because I have a conflict of interest. Jidanni (talk) 18:50, 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 Merge/Redirect Yateley#Education, as basically there is nothing much new info then there and most have opted for that option. --JForget 23:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yateley Manor

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

So many tabs, stub, no hope. unreferenced, possible hoax – i123Pie biocontribs 00:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Not a hoax - I have found its site via Google and added an external link. A few results on news sites, could be used as sources for expanding the article - one thing I'm not sure of is whether preparatory schools are notable enough. --Snigbrook (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. In looking at the school's website, it appears that this school has a fair amount of history to it. There is also apparantly one published book on its history. --76.205.25.141 (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, no indication of notability. Being 60 years old isn't that much history, and the "published book" seems to be by two of the school's teachers (and, if I'm not mistaken, its content is given in full on the school's website). Huon (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Schools notability is in WP:SCHOOL. As well as the 'John Devonshire and Stephen Bland' source referred to by the above editors. There seems to be another book covering it [62] 'G.H. STILWELL (Edit S. Louder) The History of Yateley 1974'. ChessCreator (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Is "The History of Yateley 1974" about the school or about the village? And if the latter, would it make the school notable? Huon (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect/delete as a non-notable permastub. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to Yateley#Education seems the sensible way to go. TerriersFan (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to Yateley#Education, aswell. – i123Pie biocontribs 08:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge as suggested. It's a primary school, and does not pass my standards for schools. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was redirected (non-admin close). PeterSymonds | talk 13:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suomen Huippumalli Haussa

Suomen Huippumalli Haussa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The correct way to write it is Suomen huippumalli haussa (lower case h's). I created the page and didn't correct it. Now, there are two pages. The correct one is Suomen huippumalli haussa. Please delete Suomen Huippumalli Haussa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopea (talk • contribs) 08:49, April 7, 2008

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

The result was Keep per overwhelming snowfall. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lopadotemachoselachogaleok...

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

Word not found in dictionary ,not used and is one in another language of a fictional dish.No citations have been given.Hopefully copied it right.Clearly not notable and not used.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - Would of been sensible to mark the article {{notability}} rather then raising an Afd. ChessCreator (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

*Strong merge to Aristophanes' Assemblywomen. Not notable in and of itself, but certainly worthy of inclusion in the article from the play it is contained in. Having read Assemblywomen two quarters ago, I know there's at least one paper that follows the transliterations and the various 'versions' of the word in the most prominent translations. Finding it on the internet would probably be ... hard, for obvious reasons, so I'll probably have to put finding it off until tomorrow when I can stop at the library. Celarnor Talk to me 01:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, redirect. Celarnor Talk to me 01:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Provisional Keep notable I think, but hard to check.Nick Connolly (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but it should definitely be moved. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have no strong opinion on this one way or another (as I am almost solely a Wiktionary contributor), but Wiktionary is just wrapping up a couple of conversations about this word at our requests for verification and requests for deletion pages, if anyone is interested in reading. In short, the policy for dead languages is that a single attestation merits inclusion, so the Ancient Greek spelling stays. Also, we've moved the romanization to a spelling used in a famous translation of the play (which is different than the Wikipedia article title), as nonce words in important works are often kept as well. Just thought someone might want to know. Atelaes (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Its claim as the longest Greek word should be referenced, but if it is true, should meet the notability criteria. --76.205.25.141 (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of sources. Finding sources on it is very tough too. Undeath (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. While nobody is going to type "Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon" into a search engine, making a section about it in an article about Aristophanes is inappropriate, and I think it would detract from an article about Assemblywomen in the same way that putting a section in the Odyssey about "Oh Brother Where Art Thou?" would be inappropriate. However, a link could be placed in those articles (hopeuflly, one of those shortened links like

a 171-letter word. As the article points out, the significance of this addition by Aristophanes has been looked at by other scholars (an explanation is in order for Henry Liddell and Robert Scott (philologist). Mandsford (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. I cant see no sources - looks hoaxy to me and I couldnt find anything on google Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 04:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not a hoax, but it's impossible to use the entire word as a search term in Google. Here are some hints at potentially helpful sources: [63], [64], [65]. Zagalejo^^^ 05:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
There is zero chance it is a hoax. Pick up a copy of Assemblywomen. I deeply, deeply urge the closing admin to disregard this probably-in-good-faith, yet obviously-deep-misunderstanding-of-the-subject matter comment. Celarnor Talk to me 11:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Subject is in the Guinnes Book of World Records, 1990 ed, pg. 129. Celarnor Talk to me 11:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Guinness Book reference, plus the connection to a classic writer, establishes notability. I agree this isn't a word anyone is going to bother to search for, but it is something that might be read by someone reading the article on the author. 23skidoo (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable to Guinness Book of records. Longest words ever to appear in literature. ChessCreator (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per the numerous references that have been put forward. Bikasuishin (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Changing from merge because sources have been found. Celarnor Talk to me 13:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP Seems weird at first. But is notable and useful Ijanderson977 (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • keep notable a part of a historical work. Educational, highbrow which should be prized as a contrast to a lot of other articles on wiki. special, random, Merkinsmum 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep no matter how ridiculously long it is, it does exist and has historical value--Pewwer42  Talk  22:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This fictional dish was invented by the famous ancient Greek dramatist Aristophanes, who lived from 456 BC – ca. 386 BC. I'd say any work created by a famous guy in ancient times that is still remembered today is notable enough to be on Wikipedia.--134.139.135.84 (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Deserves mention in wikipedia more than 90% of what's already in here.Helixweb (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep- a curiosity which has survived approx. 2,400 years and counting. I'm sympathetic to the nominator, because it fails the Google test, but it has become clear that it's an exception in that regard, for the obvious reasons. Mr. IP (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As strong a keep as I can convey. Historical, survived thousands of years, in Guinness, scholarly, clearly notable, etc. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 18:43, 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. John254 01:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rodney Pocceschi (2nd nomination)

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

I still don't see why this person is notable. There was a small amount of local coverage when he died, but no more than any other local murder case. Renominating. —Chowbok ☠ 19:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong keep Note Chowbok is the one who nominated this for AFD 17 months ago. The result was no consensus and now he's renominated it. It is indeed disheartening that article that may not be globally significant but nowhere near a vanity page or indulgent frippery get knocked off Wiki. There are far better things to delete that upstanding young policemen who are killed for no good reason.The mere fact that his death inspired his family to save others with the Fallen Officers fund makes him notable. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Is the "Fallen Officers Fund" notable in some way? If so, I would consider this a decent argument for keeping.—Chowbok ☠ 20:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, and notability doesn't diminish over time. Whatever Chowbok's agenda is, move on, you're doing nothing worthwhile here. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • reply going after a horse you've already beaten is what is inappropriate and unseemly. I see no good faith on your part to assume. You are going after an article you've already gone after, that is a WP:POINT violation and I openly and without reservation accuse you of bad faith. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Ad hominem attacks and accusations of bad faith really aren't necessary. Community consensus can change, and Chowbok is well within his or her rights to re-nominate an article after a good chunk of time has passed. Ford MF (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you, Ford. I would also point out again that my last nomination (almost a year-and-a-half ago) was "No consensus", i.e. unresolved. I wouldn't have renominated were it "Keep". Kinsetbuffalo shouldn't take things so personally.—Chowbok ☠ 21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, same as the last time this article was nominated. The law, the media, and the popular culture all treat the murder of a police officer as a "special" offense, one that is almost automatically notable. People get murdered all the time without receiving any subsequent media coverage, with nothing more than a sentence fragment in a local police blotter, but a police officer? Never. Ford MF (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Ford MF that renomination after a long wait is permissible, unlike the barrage of deletion attempts launched against some articles. Nevertheless, the original coverage hasn't vanished, and there's at least one additional story since the first AfD: [66]. I've added this reference to our article. JamesMLane t c 21:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per above; seems to be quite notable given the presence in multiple sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Zsero (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep; definitely notable in posthumous effect. Redrocket (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep in the hope of changing the general consensus, but with considerable skepticism. What makes this more notable than other murders? do we intend to include every murder of a police officer? That might be plausible, but are there other recent precedents? I wouldn't particularly mind, in fact, if we included all murders as a matter of policy, but I think the consensus is still against it in general. I don't want to debate every murder at AfD, and I think the solution is to establish a general rule, and follow it, so what I'm after is some degree of consistency. The continuing publicity seems to have been entirely local, about a non-notable memorial fund. And in any case, if kept, it needs to be transferred to the event, as Murder of Rodney Pocceschi because he is not otherwise notable. I think the keeps are a violation of WP:MEMORIAL. And it is perfectly proper to nominate again after a no consensus--as often as it takes to get consensus one way or another, allowing a reasonable time for a chance to get additional opinions--a month or two is usual-- the purpose of these discussions is to get consensus. A In fact, if kept, I'll take it as a signal that consensus generally is changing; if it doesnt, I will certainly consider it fair if someone renominates after another 6 months, which I think the proper time after a single keep. DGG (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. The problem with what you propose, DGG, is that Wikipedia establishes notability through reliable media sources, and reliable media sources show no consistency whatsoever when it comes to covering murders. (It's kind of a hobby of mine.) A middle-aged black man, Matthew Smith, stabbed to death in the Bronx receives a single sentence in the police blotter of one single New York paper (no other paper, to my knowledge reported the murder). Whereas the murder of a reasonably affluent, arty, attractive white female makes for national headlines. I'm not on a soapbox here about what this says about the prejudices of the consumers of mass media, I'm just saying that it is what it is. And I'm on the team that says all murdered police officers are automatically notable, since a murdered police officer always, always rates media coverage. Ford MF (talk) 21:48, 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.