Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 19

< February 18	February 20 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Systematic review of the Requests for Adminship process Broad RFC on the nature and purpose of notability and the GNG Discussion on the current notability guidelines Proposal to add 'class C' to the article grading system Revisiting status of WP:Attribution Centralized discussion on terrorism related articles ArbCom proposal to create a Sourcing Adjudication Board Discussion to work out the implementation details of flagged revisions Discussion over the approval of bots Wikipedia:Plot summaries Global blocking on Wikimedia projects SSP/RFCU merger proposal Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)
Archive

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patriot Union Of America

Non-notable political advocacy group in the US. The article is promotional in tone and solely referenced through the group's website. Can't find third-party coverage of any significance on the web (though in all fairness the organization is fairly young). The username of the creator also suggest a conflict of interest (user:Zrbonn, PUA founder: Xelan Bonn). Pichpich (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, NN group that fails WP:ORG. Only claims to notability are tenuous connections to White House, but has received no news coverage that I can find. --Dhartung | Talk 08:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:ORG with no reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
delete per above. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nic Hypolite

According to the Sonics' own site, it's a club and therefore doesn't meet WP:SPORT since it's not fully professional. I tried to re-write the article but I can find nothing from reliable sources and trivial ghits. Travellingcari (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Though the content in the page nominated for deletion and nom's comments do not match, this page fails as the subject is non-notable. Salih (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, curious as to what doesn't match. Page mentions his playing for the Swindon Sonics, which I addressed. Travellingcari (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment I mistook your comments for Swindon Sonics. Sorry. Salih (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - not playing at the highest level of his sport, and no coverage to indicate any notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable athlete. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 21:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SFML

It's an open source software, so not sure it can be speedied, and my prod was removed and questioned on its discussion page, so listing here. I can see no notability at all. Minimaki (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep: i recommend to keep this article - i think it will come back. It is a useful library - user that found it, was interested to use it - plus this software is stable (and not a beta). 23:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.179.138.48 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply Nothing speaks against it coming back. Just let's wait until it is notable enough. Right now all it does is set a bad precedent for an article not claiming any notability. Whether it's useful or not is besides the point here - what is needed is sources. --Minimaki (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - SFML as an acronym brings up lots of search results, but there are multiple things called SFML. Qualifying the search with "Simple And Fast Multimedia Library" filters the results but they appear to be blogs and forum posts. No reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable. I think this would have qualified for the db-web speedy; and WP:ILIKEIT, as always, is not an argument for notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Transwiki to Wiktionary. --VS ^talk 11:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sarav viapak

Nomination. Article provides barely any information. Definately not something you would find in a encyclopedia. Maybe it should be moved to the Wiktionary. --eskimospy (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki To Wiktionary. Although at least one source would be nice too.Beeblbrox (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wiktionary; article should be currently tagged with {{Copy to Wiktionary}} –Dream out loud (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rabio Lepus

Questionably notability? SGGH ^speak! 18:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - There is nothing to write about. No reliable sources nor any cites at all. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete - no sign of notability whatsoever. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Does not appear to be notable, and lacks any 3rd party non-trivial citaetions to back it up. -Djsasso (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IMDEX

No evidence this conference is in any way notable. Trivial ghits, mainly about 'upcoming presentations' at past conferences. Travellingcari (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. There is news coverage such as this, and it appears that the conference is attended by top members of the naval forces as noted here. -- Whpq (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep - but move to full name of the conference with a redir for the abbreviation, and put some better sources on this thin stub. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete or Merge into another article, not even close to being within the guidelines.--Sallicio 21:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What article would be the target for a merge? And what guidelines does this article fall outside of? -- Whpq (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The target article would be whatever the author can find to merge it in to. The only notablility asserted is what the author states. There are no references or third-party citations. These are the basics for notability (among other things) but this still lacks those two prerequisites. Cheers!--Sallicio 22:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Unreferenced, notability is not established. WWGB (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Relisted twice, no consensus. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Offs

No evidence of a charting single, radio play or anything else that would pass WP:MUSIC Travellingcari (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I will admit this band is largely unknown, they do pass point 10 on WP:MUSIC, for the inclusion on Not So Quiet on the Western Front, a notable compilation (an article which I plan to do more work on) and here, every review praises the band for being one of the frontrunners of ska-punk, a notable style. Ghostbear616 20:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Let Them Eat Jellybeans not Not So Quiet on the Western Front. Ghostbear616 05:29, 13 February 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 22:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep as per what Ghostbear616 said. Still doesn't mean the article doesn't need a good tidy up though. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toe cleavage

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Toe cleavage

Articles for deletion/Toe cleavage (2nd nomination)

This is to help 78.86.18.55 (talk • contribs • count) who wanted to nominate the article, but couldn't because IP addresses can't start new pages (i.e. the discussion page for AfD). Until the editor states his reasons here, interested people can find them on Talk:Toe cleavage. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Keep No reason to delete is provided. The subject is obviously notable and the article is well-sourced. Why should we wste time on an WP:IDONTLIKEIT from an editor who is too lazy to even register? Colonel Warden (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I dunno, to me this falls under WP:BITE. Reasons were given on the talk page by a registered user Cumulus Clouds (talk · contribs) who promised an AFD for notability (but recommended a merger, which does not require AFD). It's a fair enough nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 08:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete In short, this is a definition of the phrase with two brief comments on it. WP is not a dictionary. I will expand upon this a bit more later as I am just about to sleep. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete This debate is about the article, not the nominator. The sources provided include 1 newspaper article that makes only brief mention of toe cleaveage, and 2 blogs. Pretty low on the notability scale. Please don't bite the newcomer. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep sufficient sourcing. Best name for the article can be deiscussed on the talk page for it. DGG (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, notable through usage and promotion by known shoe designers. Sounds silly at first glance but is actually used quite seriously. --Dhartung | Talk 08:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep or merge. The article is now extensively footnoted. It's too bad there isn't an article like Shoe design or Fashion shoe, since I think the topic is best as part of a larger article. But given the alternatives of deleting or keeping, it's clearly worth keeping. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Yes I think it's a goofy idea, but the article now has references coming from fashion designers, office etiquette, and the fetish community. I don't think you could ask for more diverse sourcing. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
keep per Broughton and Squidfryer. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Like Cleavage (breasts), it hardly Non notable. Also third party sources establish its notability--NAHID 15:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Subject's article features much more than a defintion, and features serveral sources, and is therefore completely encyclopedic. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Economic development corporation

Contested prod, prod removed without details given, original prod rationale: There are notable organisations that share this as part of their name. I am unable to find, however, a reliable source discussing the general structure of such organisations. This is not surprising, as there are no particular legal restrictions, no mandated structure; it is not even restricted to state-level organisations, as some city- and county- level organisations of widely varying function also have this as part of their name. In the end, its just a collection of three words that some organisations working in economic development - and that too in a non-mainstream sense - tend to use. Relata refero (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. There was no reason on the prod, and it appeared to meet V,NPOV,RS, etc. I don't know whether these are different from a chamber of commerce (as the article alleges), so I won't !vote for either keep or merge. Evidence of difference or sameness would be helpful. I don't think lack of structure, legal restrictions are a problem - many other types of organisation, such as humanitarian organisations are similarly amorphous, but their existence is well documented. Mostlyharmless (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep and clean up (which I'll start). Appears to be notable, and does not violate the rules. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, but do they actually exist as something we can frame an article around? Or will it be at best a glorified disambiguation page? Relata refero (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Doesn't meet any criteria for deletion. The article needs further development. Majoreditor (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welland Estate

This article has been tagged needs additional citations for verification since February 2007 and may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards since July 2007. The area is not especially notable and does not form a distinct geographical part of the city of Peterborough; encyclopedic content is duplicated at Dogsthorpe, Peterborough. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked for sources? DGG (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I want it deleted for the reasons given. Have you looked..? Chrisieboy (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, actually, that is part of the Nominators job according to WP:GTD, to do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I also stated the area is not especially notable and does not form a distinct geographical part of the city of Peterborough; encyclopedic content is duplicated at Dogsthorpe, Peterborough. Chrisieboy (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - it appears to represent a small neighbourhood of Peterborough which is referred to by name repeatedly in news reports. -- Whpq (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Can you provide some examples? Chrisieboy (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - even a fairly brief google search brought up lots of mentions in the news relating to crime in this area, which backs up some of the information in the article. Of particular note are The Guardian, Peterborough Today, Peterborough City Council, the BBC (although the last merely mentions the estate). The article certainly requires cleanup, that's no reason to delete it though. -- Roleplayer (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability. Chrisieboy (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment - the article does not appear to be an indiscriminate collection of information. The short burst of news reports is just what I uncovered in a quick 60 second search of google, and they mostly back up the information already found in the article. -- Roleplayer (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Comment. Nothing of value would be lost if this is deleted and there is nothing to prevent a future editor from recreating a well written and properly cited article. Chrisieboy (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
keep more than enough sources supplied. If Chrisie doesn't think it is well written Chrisie is of course welcome to rewrite it. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Just none in the actual article! I do not want to rewrite it; I believe that (certainly in its current state) it should be deleted as it clearly does not meet Wikipedia's standards. If you want to rewrite it in an attempt to bring it up to those standards, please do (but I suspect you will never go anywhere near it again). Chrisieboy (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep it does appear to be a distinct area, but only a small area of the Dogsthorpe ward (so it could be merged and redirected there). It does need to be rewritten, with any unverifiable and partly nonsensical content (for example: "78 murders", of which "8 were car accidents") removed. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 21:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I would strongly support redirecting to Dogsthorpe, Peterborough. Encyclopedic content is already duplicated there. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus (default keep). Although this is a long debate in terms of word/byte count, most of the discussion is about content and normal editing issues like merging, neutrality, moving/renaming and forking, and as such are not applicable to deletion. These issues should be taken up at the article talk page, or an article RFC. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toledano Tradition

This article is about Kabbalah. The name of the article, "Toledano Tradition", is a term used only in the books of one kabbalist, Warren Kenton and by his followers. The term is not used in any traditional works of Kabbalah, nor by any scholars of Kabbalah. The term "Toledano Tradition" is very closely tied to the books of Warren Kenton, and with no one else. The article also contains diagrams from Kenton's books. Given that, the article should have been directed at a discussion of that particular aspect of Kenton's teaching....if such an article is justified. Instead, much of this article, as it now is, just duplicates part of the history section that is already in the Kabbalah article Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Nomination fixed per comment on nom's talk page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice to re-creation. As it currently stands, the article is little more than a POV-based fork of Kabbalah that serves to advance the position of the Kabbalah Society. The modern restorationist movement of the Toledano Tradition, as spearheaded by the Kabbalah Society, may or may not be suitable for inclusion depending on whether sufficient reliable references can be found. However, the current article is simply a promotional vehicle that disregards our principles of no original research, balanced and comprehensive presentation, and inappropriate content. It has little to do with presenting the named topic in an encyclopedic fashion, instead acting as a shallow vehicle for its claims. It would be like if the Latter-day Saint movement article said little to nothing of the movement, instead simply presenting its version of continuity and history (such as the Great Apostasy and Restoration) as fact. Alternatively, it would be as though the Kemetism article presented the Kemetic view of ancient Egyptian history and religion, and their sympathy with modern Kemetism uncritically and unqualified. This is not simply poor content, but a complete deviation into a POV fork. However, deletion of this fork should not prejudice the creation of an appropriate article under this name. Vassyana (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete without prejudice to re-creation, or merge. I think Vassyana's comments, above, sum up the problems with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Schosha (talk • contribs) 15:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continues on this project's dicussion page. abafied (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Retain and expand: Case against deletion:
- As noted on the Toledano Tradition page, the TT refers to the ecumenical culture of al-Andalus and how, subsequently and more importantly, it affected and influenced the work of the Spanish and, later, the Provencal Kabbalists. That is why there is a detailed section of the history of Kabbalists/ism of that period on the TT page. What the Kabbalah Society and Halevi did was revive the pre-Luranic tradition, name it specifically and work within it. As such, that needs no imprimatur from anyone, scholar, rabbi or Wikipedia. For further discussion to support this see Talk:Toledano_Tradition. Further, neither base their work on pixie dust, but on an established lineage of Judaic mysticism up to the time of Luria. The Toledano Tradition exists - attested to by scholarship over the last century and a half: the question of the name has nothing to do with anyone here or elsewhere. Did anyone give an imprimatur to Isaac the Blind at the time he introduced the title "Kabbalah" into his mysticism? No. Neither was it questioned by anyone. The point concerning the name is as spurious as the one on diagrams.

- The diagrams I put up are mine; made by me; that can be checked on Wiki:Images. All modern Trees of Life derive from the one devised by Isaac the Blind; they differ. The other that I put up derives from one in a photo of a Yemeni Kabbalistic manuscript dated 1474, in which eleven interlocked circles are the source for the diagram of Jacob's Ladder - see Kedourie, E., ed., The Jewish World, Thames and Hudson, 2003, p66. Yes, Halevi uses similar ones: no, my diagrams do not appear in his books. They constitute no evidence for a change of status of the Toledano Tradition page.

- The article is not a "promotional vehicle". No evidence has been offered that it is, merely opinion. Further, sources were put up by me to support the tradition in the TT article itself and on its discussion page: they have been ignored by Schosha and assessed as being erroneously used in this article by Vassyana, again without supporting evidence or sourcing. Neither, it appears, have read all the references or books on the source list; neither have much knowledge of this particular area of study; neither have put up source material of their own to support what must remain opinion only, even when asked repeatedly in some cases. People are free to read the discussion, evidence and sources on both pages of the Toledano Tradition entry.

- The work of the Kabbalah Society is detailed on its own page, though it is as yet a stub and could do with expansion: the work of Halevi is also detailed on its own page - Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi. The Toledano Tradition page was kept separate from those precisely because the page needed work on the history of the Toedano Tradition and on the work of the particular Kabbalists, many of them having Neoplatonic elements in their work. In that regard, it is significant that Schosha deleted all references to the Neoplatonism of the Kabbalists without any discussion after they had been sourced; he had appended citation tags only to the Neoplatonic references. When I put up so many other sources by Jewish scholars, he could no longer ignore the fact that Neoplatonism was introduced into Judaic mysticism by those rabbis and Jewish mystics. That he has also provided no sources or evidence either countering or supporting that indicates either ignorance of the period, or personal bias against Neoplatonism in Judaic mysticism, or both.

- This article is, as yet, unfinished. It needs more content on the history; not less. abafied (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

reply to: Case against deletion

I want to restate briefly the problem with the article and reason for the RfD. The article is presented as a balanced account of the history of Kabbalah and summery of the goals of Kabbalah. But it is not balanced because it represents the teaching of one Kabbalast, Warren Kenton...a Kabbalist who is not in the mainstream of Jewish Kabbalah tradition. Since Kenton's ideas are particular to him it it is necessary to make that clear, which the present article does not. Rather the contrary it claims to be objective and balanced. Compare this statement in the article:

During these periods, Kabbalists incorporated into their expositions and exegeses a degree of Neoplatonism that conformed to the requirements of Jewish theology and philosophy, though, to some extent, in medieval times, it conflicted with the Aristotelian approach to Jewish philosophy by Maimonides and his followers [[1]]

to this more balanced statement:

Beyond the specifically Jewish notions contained within the kabbalah, some scholars believe that it reflects a strong Neoplatonic influence, especially in its doctrines of emanation and the transmigration of souls (see Neoplatonism).[2]

Clearly the second quote is more sensitive and more balanced, admitting the views of religious Jews, who reject the presence of Neoplatonic influence; while also stating that a contrary scholarly view also exists. This is a single example, but the extent of unbalanced statements results in an article that amounts to original research. Of course, if it was presented as the thinking of Kenton (who is notable), there would be no problem; and it might be acceptable to merge the article with the Warren Kenton article. Because even the name of the article, Toledano Tradition, is completely tied to Kenton that might make sense. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to the above. If all that is required is that, currently, Orthodox Jews disagee that Neoplatonism influenced the Spanish/Provencal Kabbalists, a statement to that effect can be incorporated into the original article, along with the work and names of rabbis who do so. However, academic research since the 19thC. indicates otherwise (see Toledano Tradition page for general references and Talk:Toledano_Tradition for some more detailed references), and the Columbia Encyclopedia entry quoted gives no references to those scholars who have disagreed. In fact, of the four authors which are quoted in a footnote at the bottom of the Columbia page, two are academics who support the influence of Neoplatonism in Kabbalah, Scholem and Dan/Talmage; of the other two authors, Weiner's book is about his personal quest in Kabbalah and Rosenberg's book concerns sexuality and psychology in Kabbalah. I would submit that the Columbia Encyclopedia entry is a little short of references to back up the statement Schosha quotes. However, If Malcolm Schosha would be so kind as to pass on the names of those scholars who do disagree, their work, too, could be referenced in the article, along with a statement that they disagree.

Further, there is no case for merging this article with Halevi's biographical page: the WikiBiog.Project people would rightly have such additions concerning the historical lineage of the Toledano Tradition deleted as irrelevant to a biographical article. That is the reason why the stand-alone page for the Toledano Tradition was put up.

On the question of balance, the first quote that Schosha put up has in the original statement on the Toledano Tradition page a reference, ref. no, 12, to Lenn Goodman's book, Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought, in which he states that Maimonides and others disagreed with the Jewish Neoplatonists: this, alongside investigations into the influence of Neoplatonism on Kabbalah, does not constitute imbalance. Goodman is a notable academic and scholarly editor in the field of Jewish and Islamic Philosophy, of which Kabbalistic studies are a part. I have yet to see any articles, academic or otherwise, that view his work as unbalanced. If Malcolm Schosha has references to any of those, I would be pleased to have them.abafied (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

see the talk page, which is where this where all this talk should be (it seems to me). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep but make sure to add in acc. to Kenton where appropriate. Try to find out if any critiques have been written of this view. The basic distinction between Lurianic and pre-Lurianic (and pre-Cordoverian as well) Kabbalah is certainly valid. Making Avicebron or even Halevi a representative seems wrong though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf2191 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Suggest focusing the AfD on the sole question of whether the subject being presented is notable and can be reliably sourced. The question of whether Warren Kenton's view is notable is separate from whether most religious or academic scholars agree with it or whether the article describes the relevant perspectives in a neutral way. AfD addresses whether the subject is suitable for an article, not whether the present article is of good quality. Poor quality articles can be cleaned up eventually. If a merge is appropriate this can be dealt with. Once we address whether the subject is suitable for an article, all the other issues can be dealt with. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Shirahadasha Thank you for your helpful comments. In my view the first problem is the name of the article. "Toledano Tradition" is a term 100% associated with Warren Kenton and his followers. The term is used by no one else, so its use amounts to a code word identifying Kenton's views (which are highly influenced by Gurgjieff and Ouspensky). It just is not a suitable name for the subject matter of the article. The name of the article itself strongly implies its POV, and that is a point of view not suitable for this article....if, indeed, it is suitable for any article at all. A second problem, connected to the Kenton POV, is the claim that Kabbalah developed in the Girona group from the Neoplatonism of Solomon ibn Gabirol. This is a view that was disproved by Gershom Scholem, but the creator of the article, Abafied, will not consider doing without it. In any case, any useful content in this article could be merged, some into the the Warren Kenton article (where the term "Toledano Tradition" would be in place), and some into the history section of the Kabbalah article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand that point. If his followers call it the "Toldabo tradition" and if he has a significant amount of followers, then Toledano Tradition is the name to go by. Scholem's criticism should certainly be mentioned and the article should be restructured to show that we are dealing with a fringe group (calling themselves Toledano Tradition) rather then a reputable academic interpreation of Kabbalah.Wolf2191 (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wolf2191, the name "Toledano Tradition" would be okay if placed in a context that makes it clear it is the Warren Kenton POV toward the history of Kabbalah. But in this article, the only people who understand the source of the POV are a relatavly small number of people familiar with Kenton, and most people will have no way to understand there is a POV. In fact the editor who created the article maintains there is no POV. If the name of the article was changed to something like "Early Kabbalah in the Sephardi tradition", and any problematic statements were balanced, then there would be no need for this AfD. But if you take a look at the article's talk [[3]] page, where most of the content was generated in the last two and one half weeks, you will see the editor, Abafied was not receptive to such changes. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

- WP:FRINGE gives guidance on how to determine whether fringe theories should be included in the encyclopedia. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Clarification: I'm not expressing an opinion on whether it is a fringe theory or not, just noting that it could still be included even if it were. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete without prejudice to re-creation or Completely Rewrite and add content from the Kenton Tradition Warren Kenton and the Toledano tradition is important with many external sources and many shelves of books and lots of followers. SUch an article on the Kenton school and its teachers would be imporatant, just as the Kabbalah Centre is important. But this article as it stands is about medieval Kabbalah with 2 lines about Kenton. The Jewish Encyclopedia in 1901 considered Kabblah as Neo-platonism as do many contemporary scholars. That discussion of the role of Neoplatonism in Kabblah belongs elsewhere- either under "kabbalah" or "Neoplatonism and Kabbalah." The debate over Neoplatonism is not a specifically Warren Kenton discussion- Kenton just relies on the pre-Scholem views- that are back in fashion with some scholars. Kenton's contribution is not his citation of 19th century scholarship on Neoplatonism and Kabblah, rather to create a universal kabbalah thatis not Alester Crowley or Golden Dawn. It is not a fringe group among Universal and non-Jewish kabbalistic teachings--Jayrav (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayrav, In the Kabbalah article there is now only a short mention of the debate over Neoplatonic influence, in the last paragraph here[[4]]. It would be good to expand this and/or link to a separate article on the subject. (But, truthfully, that whole section, as it now is, seems very speculative, and disorganized too. I am disinclined to remove any of it because I have hopes someone with the necessary knowledge will improve it.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Jayrav, If the main complaint about the Toledano Tradition article is that there is a too brief explanation of Halevi's revival and his extensions of Kabbalah, that can be remedied. The brief section detailing his work can be expanded (though some of the differences were spelled out in the introduction to the article). At this stage, that can be done by reference to his books. Scholarly work on his sources is in the process of preparation; it will not be completed for some time.

On Neoplatonism in the Spanish/ Provencal Kabbalists 9th--13thCs., that is a necessary part of the Toledano Tradition. My research indicates that their work was heavily influenced by Neoplatonic theories of emanation; that, at the time, was an innovation - one Maimonides argued against later, as mentioned in the article, though briefly. That, too, can be expanded. Precisely because there was argument then between the rationalists and the revelationists, is one reason why Neoplatonic influences were spelled out in the article and should not be excluded or hived off into a general article.

The section, too, on Caro, Cordovero and Alkabetz needs expanding; their history concerns how the Toledano Tradition was carried to Safed. No mention has been made, as yet, of how the Toledano Tradition affected post-Lurianic Kabbalah because, to my knowledge, no research has yet been undertaken in that field of studies. abafied (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Abafied wrote: "My research indicates that their work was heavily influenced by Neoplatonic theories of emanation; that, at the time, was an innovation - one Maimonides argued against later, as mentioned in the article, though briefly." I am sorry Abafied, but you seem to be arguing to retain, and apparently expand, your original research in the article. There is nothing wrong with doing original research, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish it. Moreover, when you write, as you have above, that "On Neoplatonism in the Spanish/ Provencal Kabbalists 9th--13thCs., that is a necessary part of the Toledano Tradition." you are in effect saying that the article really is, by design, unbalanced POV. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Move all contents and Rediect page to Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi (aka Warren Kenton) where it belongs. Seems to be well-researched and if its Kenton's view it must go on the article about him. IZAK (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep and Stubbify. The notablility of the subject, the approach of Warren Kenton to the Kabbalah, has been adequately established. However, the present article does not describe this approach or contrast it with others in a neutral way, rather, it reads like an essay presenting the correctness of the approach as fact and speculating as to how other approaches came to go astray. Moreover, it's not clear the extent to which most of the article actually sticks to Warren Kenton's theory. Radical surgery is needed to correct this, virtually the whole article needs to be rewritten, so the outcome of this AfD should be stubbify. --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment for closing admin. This would be acceptable to me, even though I stated my position as "delete without prejudice". This would essentially serve the same purpose as my delete opinion, which is to eliminate the inappropriate focus and synthesis that forms the substance of the current article. That is, a drastic stubbing of the article would essentially produce the same result as a delete and re-create. Vassyana (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

NB: Abafied is at this time in the process of completely reorganizing, and will soon start to rewrite, the Kabbalah article. The likely result will be that anything that she is forced to remove from her defective Toledano Tradition article will soon wind up included in the Kabbalah article; and there will be no one who understands the issues to prevent it. Wikipedia's complete inability to deal with those editors who are determined to misuse it is a fascinating spectacle. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rudget . 16:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mybytes

Delete no indication that this is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Borderline case, could have been deleted but page is partially known and therefore a redirect would be a better option. Rudget . 16:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dialog engineering

Delete unsourced one-liner that has minimal context. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Dialog system -- Whpq (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 02:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PIPC Management Consultancy

Delete nn company fails WP:CORP, numerous papers, magazines, etc., have a "fastest growing" list for various industry niches, placing on one is not a notable achievement as they are more subjectively based than objectively based - hence different companies make similar lists from different sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Fasttrack 100 is an completely independent and objective review. Those companies listed require formal audit to acheive listing and indee this is a notable acheivement Moreover this is the 2nd year running this company has made this listing. User:Comerfordj —Preceding comment was added at 16:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Essentially unreferenced article about a non-consumer consulting services firm. This sort of business needs a fairly strong showing of notability. Being listed in a directory does not meet the business notability guidelines. Text is strongly non-neutral in tone: known for its expertise in project and program management, (t)he market demanded management consultants that could focus on ‘delivery and execution’ . . . - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Carlossuarez46: I'm not seeing any sign of notice or impact outside of a very narrow range -- and I'm not sure about those, either. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Just does nto appear notable to me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Do Not Delete - listing in the Fasttrack 100 is certainly notable. Indeed, the Fasttrack 100 is also listed in Wikipedia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Times_Fast_Track_100). I note that PIPC are listed here and indeed were listed in 2006. Could I suggest PIPC update the article to remove any 'non-neutral' text. User:Samsonthomas — Samsonthomas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This is it, in fact. —Preceding comment was added at 07:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Listing in the Fasttrack 100 means, well, a listing in the Fasttrack 100, and that's pretty much it. --Calton | Talk 13:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Despite vote stacking, this article appears to be notable. -Djsasso (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Shane Neal

CLOSING ADMIN-SEE VOTE STACKING CONCERNS Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nealstudio — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability questionable -- may or may not be notable enough, but I think this particular article should be deleted at the moment due to WP:COI issues. (See contributions; it appears that subject of the article wrote the article himself and is sole editor, which creates WP:OR problems as well.) --Nlu (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep The U.S. Senate website confirms his commissioned portrait of Vandenburg. There was a bit of puffery in the intro~~The puffery in the intro needs to be removed~~, but that is an editing issue and not a notability issue.(added) I have removed it, so now the article has more than one editor in its history. ~~The sole authorship by the subject is easily remedied: edit it.~~ The refs make it puzzling that the nominator calls it an original research problem. The "Keep" is a "weak" one because I did not find much else about him in Google News or Google Scholar searches. Perhaps there are databases of publications from the arts that would yield more coverage. His web site [5] shows ceremonies of unveilings of numerous portraits of national leaders in the U.S to be permanently exhibited in prominent venues such as the U.S. Senate, and there is undoubteldy independent coverage of this somewhere which could be added. I present this not as an independent or reliable source per se, but as an indicant of the likelihood of such sources. Edison (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The reason why I think there is a WP:OR problem is that, for example, the independent sources linked do not show him as the artist for O'Connor's portrait. --Nlu (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Weak Keep Artist seems rather prolific. I got many google hits when I entered his name. Also, I went to the U.S. Senate website and found confirmation of the claims to various portraits. These have now been referenced and cited in the article. Also, the Arthur Vandenburg article here has a portrait by Neal which I added to the article as well. Hopefully this helps. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Still not sure if it meets WP:BIO, which says that the work must be a substantial part of a significant exhibition....considering the U.S. Capitol may/may not be a substantial exhibition and that his works may/may not be substantial, I'm going to note that I only think weakly that this should be kept. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Presidential portrait would be enough for WP:BIO (there have only been 40-odd of these), but Senators are a ... well, a dollar a dozen, and may have more than one portrait done in their possibly long careers. While it's certainly an honor, I don't think it's automatically notable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - The Senate portraits are the official portraits for the permanent collection of the U.S. Capitol, certainly noteable by any measure, as there are very few portraits commissioned by the Senate. In the field of fine art portraiture, the artist is very accomplished. I think the page should be kept. Entrekinep (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Entrekinep

— Entrekinep (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep -the artist, Neal is very well known in the profession of painting portraits and it is rare for any artist to be selected to paint portraits for the Capitol.Crestview (talk) 13 February 2008 (UTC)Crestview

— Crestview (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak delete May or may not be notable, COI issues. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Ya, wow...I noticed that earlier (that some of the accounts seemed to only have contributions to this AFD and the article), but I wasn't sure how to proceed because I didn't want to scare off new editors. Hmm. Lazulilasher (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
"Keep" How silly to even consider deleting an article about a portrait artist who, at the early stage of his career is already painting Washington Big Shots! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyattdog (talk • contribs) 21:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- — WyattDog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornix_talk 21:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Not a vote exactly (I suppose I'm leaning towards a weak delete) but I do think this article has some quite serious sourcing problems. Here's the entire body text of the page linked to at footnote 1:

Michael Shane Neal received his art degree in 1991 from David Lipscomb University in Nashville, Tennessee. The Portrait Society of America awarded him its prestigious grand prize for the 2001 International Portrait Competition. Neal has painted over 400 portraits of United States senators, ambassadors, federal judges, and corporate and civic leaders. Neal has also painted the portrait of Arthur H. Vandenberg, which adorns the wall of the Senate Reception Room, along with other notable senators. In 2007 Neal completed the portrait of Robert C. Byrd. Neal resides in Tennessee near his Nashville studio.

...and it is used to source the following five sentences:

- Michael Shane Neal (born November 23, 1968) is an American portrait artist notable for creating official portraits for the United States Capitol of U.S. Senator Arthur Vandenburg, former Majority Leader and U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, 10th Architect of the Capitol Alan Hantman, and for the creation of over 400 works of art depicting various public figures.
- Recent current commissions include: Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor for the Sandra Day O'Connor School of Law, Arizona State University; former Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham for the Department of Energy; and U.S. Senator Arlen Specter for Yale University Law School.
- A professional artist since the age of 22. Counted among his honors was the commission to paint Senator Arthur Vandenberg for the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C., the first portrait of its kind to be added to the Senate Reception Room in nearly 50 years, Neal received the commission at age 32, making him among the youngest artists ever commissioned by the United States Senate.
- His work has been featured in publications such as American Artist, International Artist, Artist's Sketchbook, and The Artist’s Magazine, Art News, Fine Art Connoisseur, Roll Call, The Hill, and AskMen.com
- [Awarded] 2001 Grand Prize Portrait Society of America International Portrait Competition.

I suppose it unambiguously sources the fifth one OK. But I think we need to see reliable sources, honestly applied rather than just scattered about like this, in order to say that someone is notable enough to have a page. AndyJones (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

- Comment: Ya, the addition of source #1 was me. I was just trying to help the article out a bit (and footnotes are supposed to go after punctuation). I had intended it to source only the Senator portraits and the brief bio bits--I wasn't attempting to mislead. Really, I don't see a problem with the article being deleted, my main intention was to just see if it could be rescued. No worries if it gets deleted. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak Delete. Although perhaps prolific, the subject appears to not meet the criteria for WP:NOTE for creative professionals. The subject is not "widely cited by their peers or successors," is not "originating a significant new concept, theory or technique," is not the subject of a book/major motion picture, and does not seem to be "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries".BWH76 (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep sufficiently important commissions, and enough of them. DGG (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
keep The sockpuppeting is unfortunate because this is someone who would be kept anyways and I hope that the closing admin will keep a good track of the arguments from normal users. There are a variety of non-trivial sources about Michael Shane Neal including the the Artist's Magazine and Art News. That together with his work makes him pass WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

keep I added various organizations that Neal has been elected to by his peers. These can be found on his website and were verified through the websites of the organizations. Maybe this helps.barnesab

Weak Keep- His commissions and portraits are of note. Especially the portrait of Robert Byrd who was a former Majority Leader and is the current President Pro Tempore (which makes him third in line for presidential succession). The sources are a bit weak, but I think that the page should be kept. Hopefully more sources can be found to strengthen the article. Rigby27 Talk 20:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although the page is well written and some may argue, well sourced, the significance of such an article is questionable. Rudget . 16:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bridges in film

Unencyclopedic trivia. No more meaningful than Streets in film or Airports in film. Corvus cornix_talk 22:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia articles should be be about topics that are the subject of reliable published sources, not merely instances of a particular phenomenon deemed notable or interesting by editors. As it is, the article fails the notability guideline. Admittedly, it's more selective than many "cultural references to X" articles, and I'd be willing to reconsider my opinion if sources could be found that generalise about "bridges in film" in, say, the way the lead does. EALacey (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep (for now) - I agree with EALacey, however, the lack of WP:RS or something that is unattributed does not mean it cannot be, or that sources do not exist. I'm confident that the article passes WP:NOTE for these reasons. Furthermore, trivia is generally only shunned if it's a miscellaneous obtrusive list. They are discouraged, not reasons for deletion. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete/merge Most of what is here is about bridges that are notable in their own right and have their own articles. A mention of important film appearances in those articles seems more appropriate and useful to the reader. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete/merge. Films about bridges, perhaps. But films with bridges in them? No way. Any notable appearances of real-world bridges in films should be noted in the articles of those bridges, but we don't need an article that is basically just a loose collection of trivia. PC78 (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear god, delete - yet another in a horrifying number of "this one time in this one film there was this thing" articles that have polluted Wikipedia for far too long. The fact that a bridge appears in a film does not merit encyclopedic attention. Otto4711 (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Settings of films are major elements of their creativity and significance, and bringing them together in an appropriate article is appropriate. they should also be mentioned in the articles about the individual bridges. Beeblbrox is right about that. The use of a notable set of these is fiction is notable. Every one of these can be sourced. DGG (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the fact that a film company put in a shot of one bridge versus another bridge or whatever is not significant, especially if there aren't reliable sources that specifically discuss the choice of setting. Otto4711 (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, but only the ones where bridges are key elements, e.g. The Bridge on the River Kwai, The Bridge of San Luis Rey, For Whom the Bell Tolls, Bataan, Lloyd Bridges (okay, maybe not that last one). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

comment I think the above remark reveals the core problem with this type of article. In X-men The Last Stand you couldn't tell the story without the Golden Gate bridge, it's practically part of the cast. In many of the other films, the bridge is simply part of the backdrop, used to establish that we are looking at San Francisco. In a contemporary film, it could just as easily be the TransAmerica Pyramid. Deciding here which of these films are in some way about the bridge and which use it simply to establish a location would seem to be original research. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - so, there are some films that have bridges in them. There seems to be no connection whatsoever between them, making this a perfect example of a list of indiscriminate information. - fchd (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chrysler LA engine

The article is very messed up, not at all at the encyclopedia standards & is very messy to read. As well, the article does not site any sources or references. Warrior4321^talkContribs 22:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Keep — This AfD nomination makes little sense. Those few Wikipedia articles that approach perfection get nominated for Featured Article status. We don't delete the ones that fall short of the mark, we work coöperatively and steadily to improve them incrementally. Chrysler LA engine needs work — reliable sources would be a good start. However, it's not "messy" by any reasonable definition; its assertions and subtopics are arranged logically and coherently, its lengthy lists are neatly hidden behind hide-tabs pending consensus on whether the lists should be there or not, and it is currently under active development by more than one editor. There seems no valid reason to delete this article unless we also decide to delete Ford FE engine, Chrysler Slant-6 engine, Ford Windsor engine, and numerous other articles about vehicle engines that are in need of — and undergoing — active development. I would suggest the nominator adhere to his/her own advice regarding Wikifying rather than deleting articles. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Keep - No kidding. This article has every reason to exist. --SFoskett (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy keep. The natural state of a Wikipedia article is unfinished. (Otherwise, what's the point?) This is similar to numerous other engine articles, and while it needs references, that is not of such urgency that deletion is the only recourse. --Dhartung | Talk 09:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chadminton

Unsourced article about a sport whose notability is unclear. Prod was contested on the grounds that other sports have their own article without being specific about which ones.

Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Oh, that's imaginative-- Chadminton instead of badminton. Bring it back when it's on ESPN8, "the Ocho" Mandsford (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep I would say keep, it is still a sport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior4321 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Sport is not the subject of any reliable sources; most hits, oddly, are for MySpace. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete As unreferenced original research. Sounds like a fun game, but popularity on one college campus and no references adds up to a failure on notability.Beeblbrox (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Per nom--NAHID 07:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - no reliable sources to indicate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
"Strong Keep" I play the sport, it's real. The game is great. It's just like every other sport with rules, fans, awards, teams, etc. Isn't wikipedia about providing information you can't find anywhere else? --Craziesportsgirl (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)— Craziesportsgirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- "Isn't wikipedia about providing information you can't find anywhere else?" In a nutshell, no it isn't ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
delete I can't find a single reliable source talking about this sport at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, yet another unknown and made-up sport. See WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, Can't believe it wasn't a speedy. Paste (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
"Strong Keep" I can assure you that while there isn't much information to be found online, chadminton has been around for years. It's tough to get credible sources to back something that's based on a game made up to be a cheap alternative to lacrosse and eventually became more. It is incredibly difficult to get anyone to take it seriously, so I implore you to consider giving chadminton a chance. I will do whatever it takes to make sure that the information is accurate, up to date, and anything else that people want or need to see to justify it's existence on Wikipedia. I understand the need to keep false and satirical articles off of this site, but this is real. Instead of being another obstacle on the bumpy road to becoming legitimate, can the Wikipedia community find it in their hearts to let us stick around? --Chadminton17 (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)— Chadminton17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- So your goal is to promote the sport? Sorry, but you have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. The sport is real? I believe that. But before writing an article in Wikipedia about it, you might want to take a look at WP:SCRABBLE. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 20:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, that goes right to the heart of this one. Nobody is saying this is a hoax, just that, as Chadmiton 17s above remark seems to indicate, it is not widely known. When Chadmiton makes it up that "bumpy road to becoming legitimate" it will be time for a Wikipedia article. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as the WP:SCRABBLE policy goes, this is not a "new, great thing you or your friends just thought up". It has been developing for more than two years, and is in the process of being established as a club sport at Ohio State University. And as for publishing things on a personal website, it has been done. This page is not for promoting chadminton, but just as a vehicle for information. Check [[7]] --Chadminton17 (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)— Chadminton17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Strong Delete. I could just as easily make a sport, popularize it in my school, and claim it's significant enough. However, a simple Google search returns nothing but user pages and the page of the school that came up with it. Thus, delete. <3 bunny 22:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you severely underestimate the work going into to "popularizing" a sport. Not that it's relevant to this argument anyway. In fact it's just as hard to convince people to play a new sport as it is to convince people to let you have a wikipedia article. Chadminton17 (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete. Fails verifiability as the article presents no reliable sources independent of the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nothing worth saving of this current article. Appears to be full of OR. -Djsasso (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Equanimity

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Equanimity

Articles for deletion/Equanimity (2nd nomination)

Delete This was deleted 2.5 years ago when it was basically nothing but a link to wiktionary. Now it's an essay, unsourced and best to be deleted. An editor deleted the content and made a dab page, but with a single link to the Buddhist concept, which may be where it ought be redirected if it's deleted, but this current incarnation isn't headed to nirvana... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep This topic is notable by this name and there is a large number of good sources available. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as unreferenced original research. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment There is a discussion of Western philosophical equanimity here. I think this is a potential article title, but I'm undecided whether the content is salvageable. It would have to be rewritten from sources and indicate the prior history of the terminology. --Dhartung | Talk 09:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment The point made by Dhartung is serious, because there is no doubt that a perfectly legitimate philosophy article can be made on the topic. The problem is that, as it is now, there isn't anything worth saving. For now, I'd say weak delete but with no prejudice for a recreation with a serious and sourced treatment of the topic.--Aldux (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rudget . 16:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sammamish Symphony Orchestra

No evidence of notability and ghits seem to primarily be performance dates. Per WP:CORP, Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. Travellingcari (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete The article has been tagged for notability for some time and no reliable sources have emerged. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
As primary author, I can't disagree with Travellingcari's assessment. David Brooks (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Sparx Systems. Non-admin closure to help with extraordinary backlog. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sparx Enterprise Architect

undefined notability - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ - I tagged this, and nobody's working on it. There's not much to the article aside from a list of features. It's impossible to tell if this has been widely adopted or what good it's for. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge per discussion below. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 02:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep. It's a crappy article, but it is a real product from a real company (my company uses it). WP:NOTE says, A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.. These: [8] [9] fit that description so I'd say this (just barely) meets notability (depending on your definition of significant). Slap some random fix me type templates on it and let it live. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Well, it has been notability tagged for over a month with no movement on it at all. The sources you mention aren't really "published" sources. Something like an O'Reilly guide might do it. Maybe this is worth a merge to the (rather anemic and potentially AfD-able) Sparx Systems instead. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd certainly go along with the merge. Sparx is pretty much a one-product company. There's no justification for two articles. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge Sparx Enterprise Architect and Sparx Systems stubs: not enough content in either to justify separate articles. — Athaenara ✉ 00:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge the Sparx Systems stub INTO this article. Gartner included EA in a recent "magic quadrant" report [10]. It is also mentioned in the editorial review for a classic textbook on OO analysis and development (Booch et al). [11]. nafisto (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.13.2 (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. Chetblong^{T C} 03:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WLS-TV minivan crash incident

This article was previously deleted as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Richardson., mainly due to It was later merged to WLS-TV as a section, which has (again) been deleted. It has now been recreated as this article, which was originally a redirect.

Let me summarize some of the arguments related to the event in question.

A mentally ill man drives his car into a TV studio, that's the whole story
This event is unlikely to have any lasting effect on anyone except the subject, his family, and perhaps the newscasters involved. It's a textbook case of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS.
This is a property crime that got undue attention because it involved a tv station that captured the noise, live on air. You Tube fodder, for maybe a few days, but not WP
Fails WP:N and WP:BLP, no lasting notability Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

The clear consensus from the last AfD was, not only is this a BLP violation as an article about the subject, but it's not a notable event. Wikipedia is not news and this event has no lasting notability — it got some minor coverage because of the circumstances, and the drifted into obscurity. It's probably no more, or less, notable than any one of the innumerable car crashes which makes it into the back pages of the New York Times. Indeed, the only claim to any lasting fame is that it became an internet meme — but, naturally, this claim is unsourced.

Did this happen? Yes. Was it reported on? Yes. Does that make it notable? Not in the slightest. Haemo (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - the nominator says it all. JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - per nomination. --Mhking (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Notable...when the crash happened on December 23rd. Two months later? Not so much. Nate • (chatter) 21:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per BLP1E and comprehensive nom Travellingcari (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - lasting notability is not established, and more likely, does not exist. Jd027^chat 00:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. It probably won't make any difference, but I think that this article should indeed be kept. For one thing, WP:BIO1E does not apply since this isn't a biography. I agree that the original Gerald Richardson article should have been deleted as an inappropriate, one-event biography, but this article (which I wrote independently of the deleted material) is primarily a description of the event, not the person. Also, notability is not a policy; it is a guideline, and one that is often questioned and contested. It's not a violation of WP:BLP because all claims are attributed to reliable sources as required by Wikipedia policy. The article meets the three core content policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR) and should therefore be kept. *** Crotalus *** 00:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is this particular article special, so that we should set aside notability guidelines for it? --Haemo (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that this article is special. I'm arguing that any article that meets core content policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and, if applicable, WP:BLP) should be kept, and that WP:N is an unneeded addition to these basic requirements. Several attempts have been made to elevate notability to policy level, and they have failed because many users consider the concept misguided. I would also point out that, even if you accept WP:N, interpretations of the policy differ. Some people think that notability, once attained, can't be lost later on; so if the crash was notable in late December 2007, it is automatically notable now. But my argument does not depend on that. *** Crotalus *** 02:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you fundamentally disagree with notability as a guideline. Fair enough, but I don't think this is the correct place to make that argument. --Haemo (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, this would have been a 100% local news story if it hadn't resulted in some compelling video of the anchor reacting as the vehicle crashed into the studio. --Dhartung | Talk 09:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
keep. I'd not object to a merge to WLS-TV provided that this stays there (it certainly is one of the most interesting things to ever happent to WLS). However, this article can manage to be kept on its own given how widespread and continuing the coverage was over a long period of time (making it not a NOTNEWS situation). Dhartung's comment above "this would have been a 100% local news story if it hadn't resulted in some compelling video of the anchor reacting" misses how Wikipedia inclusion policies function. We don't say "well, if not for this tiny thing it wouldn't have generated many reliable sources so we don't treat it that way". If we did, nothing would be notable. And to be clear since this article does not focus on the person there is no BLP1E issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- How was the coverage "widespread and continuing"? The crash happened two months ago — in the last month, there has been no news stories on it. It's a blip — it didn't even pass the "1 month" test for enduring notability. Dhartung's comment is not "this wouldn't be notable if..." it's a comment that the only reason it even attracted attention to begin with was because of the fact it was on air; as I said, it's no more or less notable than any car crash that makes it into the New York Times. It has no lasting impact on anyone, possibly beyond the driver — it's quite simply news, and that's it. --Haemo (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Hmm, that's a good point. I need to think about this more. It may make more sense to simply merge the content (regardless I see no reason for not having a mention at the main WLS-TV article). JoshuaZ (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, Newspedia: Just Say No. Wikinews is just down the hall and they don't take GFDL material. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Fails to meet WP:Bio as he was only a college player. -Djsasso (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eddie Byrd

Overly-abused page, personal attacks. Remove page altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Byrd.eddie (talk • contribs)

Comment: the subject ~~might be notable enough for Wikipedia, but~~ is barely notable enough for Wikipedia and the article has been a magnet for WP:BLP violations. This would need careful pruning and monitoring, if it is kept. A ecis^Brievenbus 20:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I am the original adder, I was not quoting authentic sources, I had mis-information, it should be deleted. Jasoned (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
None of the information quotes a source, much less a credible one, including my information. If Eddie Byrd is an caucasion, how is the University of Charleston player african-american? No information quotes any source, nor is this person famous or valid for a wikipedia entry. Jasoned (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Most of the information added since it's creation has been false as well, no credible information, nor any sources.Jasoned (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please be a bit more specific? Which information is incorrect, and what would be correct? A ecis^Brievenbus 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete perhaps I missed something but the "article" is currently, Edward Byrd better known in the world as Eddie Byrd.[edit] Biography

A native of Charlotte, North Carolina, Byrd is a Caucasian-American and is not married. I cannot find any other evidence of notability, even putting aside the COI issues of other contributors. Travellingcari (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

- This article has gone through a lot of vandalism, blankings and BLP violations in recent years. The most recent somewhat stable version of the article dates back to May 9, 2006, and states i.a. that Byrd played for the Carolina Panthers and the Miami Dolphins. That is a sufficient assertion of notability to avoid speedy deletion for A7. Jasoned and Byrd.eddie claim that this information is incorrect. That is what needs to be addressed in this AFD. If the information is incorrect, the article obviously needs to be deleted or corrected. And if the information is correct, does it make the subject notable enough for Wikipedia? A ecis^Brievenbus 22:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

- - Got it, thanks. I tried to weed through the convoluted history to see what the substance of the issue was. No evidence of him playing with the Panthers per their site and Miami lists a Eugene Byrd. Based on those I'd say delete however I'd change if other evidence can be found
    - I've had similar (lack of) results. The only sources I found for Eddie Byrd were Wikipedia mirrors. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
      - Yep that was what prompted my original delete. Thanks for clarifying. It's a mirror farm! Travellingcari (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        I am the original one who created the article and did so based on the wrong Eddie altogether. None of the facts are actual. The only known, true, facts are there on the page now. It may not merit staying on wikipedia, but it's finally correct. Otherwise, it's someone else's personal information and a total f-up on my end.Jasoned (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
delete We don't even need to worry about BLP penumbra issues since he was apparently only a college player so he doesn't meet WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tragic, but clearly non-notable. Black Kite 23:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mickey Renaud

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mickey Renaud

Articles for deletion/Mickey Renaud (2nd nomination)

Contested prod. Deleted once already in November as a non-notable junior hockey player. The only thing that has changed is that he died yesterday. However, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and dying does not create notability. Wikinews already has a blurb on his passing, as do the Windsor Spitfires and 2007-08 Calgary Flames season articles. Reso lute 20:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Nothing has changed since the last deletion and wikipedia is not a memorial. Probably could even qualify as a speedy for recreation of a deleted article. It's only been 3 months. -Djsasso (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Yes, i created the article after he died but he was the captian of the team and selected in the draft. Even though it was a late selection there are people who where selected later that have articles. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This player may have been the captain of a junior team but he has not played professionally as is required by WP:N. And those people who were selected later have played professionally or have otherwise achieved notability through other means. -Djsasso (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment Then surley most of the red link should be removed from the recent deaths section for being non-notable. I don't mean to come of rude or arogant but i feel he has the notability. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Comment I agree, they should. But just because there are other things needing fixing doesn't mean this shouldn't be deleted. -Djsasso (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, due to untimely death, never played at the professional level. Travellingcari (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete and salt. Yes, it is a tragedy, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. Renaud still fails notability. Article should not be recreated. Flibirigit (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Salt? Salt? Certainly since he died does not mean salt. BTW, this page is not a memorial. Editor of the wiki 22:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Tragic that he passed away. Nevertheless, he is not notable per WP:NOTE. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete For the same reason Paul Fendley doesn't have an article. Very sad, but its the rules. DMighton (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
StrongKeep We have an article on Keeley Dorsey, and all he did was score a grant total of 2 (count them, 2) career touchdowns before he died. Granted, it survived the same amount of afds as his touchdowns, but this guy was the captain of a notable team with an article. Just because he was young when he died should not deny him of an article. Editorofthewiki 22:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment But he wouldn't have an article if he was alive, so why should having passed away grant him the ability to have the article. Junior players just don't get articles, unless they win some major award or are drafted in the first round. Otherwise WP:N says he needs to have played professionally. -Djsasso (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment OK. But he was Captain and centre and his death does make him more notable. Every time a article is created after they die there is this debate on weather it is a memorial. Like editor said there are other articles much the same as this one. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Comment The difference between his example and this is that that player died at practice while this one died at home, likely of natural causes. -Djsasso (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
      - Does it really matter how he died, as long as he was notable during life? This guy was the leader of his hockey team and was going to the majors, while Dorsey just scored a touchdown in one major game, but was not an important pick. WP:MEMORIAL is one of the more abused policies around here, and since there was no concensus to delete in the Dorsey article considering how much more important this guy was, there should be no concensus to delete here, even if this is not a votecount. Editor of the wiki 23:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Comment But he wasn't notable in his life is the argument. He fell to afd just 3 months ago for that reason. Now he is back with an article after he has died. Notability is not temporary comes into play because he is only notable because of a short burst of news coverage. As far as "was going to the majors" well that just reeks of wikipedia is not a crystal ball, players drafted that low in the draft rarely go to the majors and since he never actually did go there you can't make assumptions that he would have. Being a captain of a junior team still does not make one notable. -Djsasso (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Very sad death, but he never did anything notable besides being a late-round draft pick, and played in the minors. Jmlk 1 7 23:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep It's absurd to think that CHL players are insufficiently notable when we have dozens of articles on college players in various sports who have never even been drafted. His death is a major news story in Canada. There is absolutely no reason to delete the article. Cheapestcostavoider (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment His death is defiantely notable, however, that would cause him to fall under Notability is not temporary, which is what this is very much a case of and notability is not inheirited. Most people don't believe college players should have pages either. Personally as a hockey fan I would love to see every hockey player get a page, but thats what the Ice Hockey Wikia is for. This is a case of recentism as always is the case when someone dies in the news and suddenly has an article on here. -Djsasso (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - for those saying he is not notable per WP:BIO because he didn't play professionally must have skipped: "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." So if there are secondary sources (i.e. newspaper reports, draft coverage, etc.) he passes notability guidelines. If additionally WP:RS (there is really only one since the two used as a reference are the same article) are added then I would vote keep. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment And you must have missed the part where it says for sports where there is not a professional version. Reguardless, the highest level of amateur competition for hockey would be the Olympics or World Championships, neither of which he has competed at. -Djsasso (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  - He was the captain of his team, and he was going to play for the majors. WP:MEMORIAL states:

Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.

- - How was he not notable?????Editorofthewiki 23:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Comment See my comments above, the fact he was going to the majors is your guess, he didn't do it yet so that is a case of WP:Crystal. Players drafted that low rarely make the majors so it is not a given fact that he was going to be going to the big show. And being a captain of junior team still does not make you notable as junior teams have many captains over the years, its not like being the captain of an NHL team which might last for 10 years or however long. -Djsasso (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
      - No, there is no "for sports where there is not a professional version" on that page. And last time I checked NHL players (and oter players from other professional leagues in the world) played in the World Championships and Olympics. At the last time I checked the NHL players were considered professionals. So that would mean those two events could not be the highest level for amateur hockey players. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Amateur players are not bared from playing in those competitions, therefore they are still the highest level. Infact it has happened more than a few times that amateurs played alongside professionals at those competitions. -Djsasso (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Amateur golfers and tennis players can compete in professional tournaments as well, but nobody would consider that to be the highest level of amateur golf/tennis. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete voted this article down once before. Nothing changed. He still wasn't notable enough to have an article. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, one thing did change: he died. So his claims to notability are:
  1. captain of a major minor leage team (we have articles on baseball minor league players)
  2. was drafted to play in the majors late in year have articles on people who were drafted later)
  3. had a huge out-of-the-blue death (we have Dorsey and I'm sure plenty of others)
- So what's the real problem? Verifibility? I'm sure I can find more sources if I look harder. I was also told on my talkpage about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That generally only applies to articles without afds that should also be nominated. That one was nominated twice, and survived, albeit a no concensus. I'd nominate it again, but it would probably be the same either way. Just because Wikipedia has systemic bias does not mean we have to feed the monster by deleting this. Editorofthewiki 18:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  - I think you are misunderstanding the level he played at. He did not play in the minor leagues. If he did then he would be having an article and this wouldn't be an issue. He played junior youth hockey, amateur. Lots of people have out of the blue deaths, that still does not warrent an article on wikipedia or I know tonnes of people I could make articles for. As for where he was drafted, we DO NOT have articles on people drafted later than him unless they played professionally, which he has not done. -Djsasso (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep Per what the creator of this article said. He was captain of his team and selected in the NHL draft. His father played in the NHL, Deleting this is just ridiculous. michfan2123 (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- 'Comment. Where is it said that notability guidelines allow for captains of junior teams or the offspring of professional athletes to be allowed? Patken4 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment. No where, the guideline is stupid and I don't care what it says. This is notable. Keeping it brings no harm to wiki. michfan2123 (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Comment It does actually bring harm to wiki in that eventually every person who ever did anything will be added to wiki, its a very slippery slope. -Djsasso (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Never drafted in the first round of the NHL draft, never won a major junior award, never played a game in a professional league, never played in the Olympics or World Championships, not an honored member of the Hockey Hall of Fame. Patken4 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Agree with what Djsasso just said. If this article is kept, I'll run down to the local rink, put on some skates, grab a stick, and play some pick-up hockey for about ten minutes. I'll be almost as notable. Sure, that's an exaggeration, but it's the same kind of exaggeration being made in the notability assertions here. This article should be deleted. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep Everyone who is saying he had not achieved notability needs to turn on their local news, or perhaps visit a website called cnn.com. The man was very well known and well respected in the OHL community and in southwestern Ontario in General. The assistant manager of the Detroit Red Wings said today that he regrets not drafting Renaud this summer. Thousands upon thousands of people have shown their support for him in life and in death if that is not notability that I don't know what is. There are people who were drafted later then Renaud and they have uncontested pages. So with that precedent, keep this page. catauro (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2008 (EST)
- Comment Only reason he made it into the news outside of the OHL and the local area his team played in is because of his tragic death. Sorry, that does not make him notable. And you just proved the point being made, stating that he is well-known in the OHL community and in southwestern Ontario. I wasn't aware that being well-known in those two "areas" make one notable. Oh wait...it doesn't. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment Since most people will come here and make keep statements without reading the guidelines I will quote one of the applicable ones that applies to this editors comments Notability is not temporary. A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews does cover topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. -Djsasso (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Newsworthy is not noteworthy. Renaud's death is a news story, much the same as any other death is. Dying does not make one notable, and Renaud's exploits as a hockey player were not sufficient to achieve notability that way. There is a remarkable number of precedents to show that junior hockey players are not notable by default, even those who have been drafted. Resolute 04:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- By default, no, but this guy was the captain of his team AND he was drafted AND his father was a major league player AND he had a suspicios death. Let's see. How is Toilets in Japan MUCH more notable than a hockey player with all those qualities. And that's a FA. Editorofthewiki 18:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Being the captain of a team does not make one notable, being drafted does not make one notable, his father being a major league player makes his father notable (see notability is not inheirited). And so far his death is not suspicious. -Djsasso (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    - But all four combined make him notable. Editor of the wiki 21:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - with additional sources now added, it now meets WP:BIO. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- None of your additional sources added anything to the article that wasn't already there. That you had to focus so much on how much height and weight a teenager gained each year only underscores just how far one has to stretch to add any kind of commentary. None the less, adding more obits doesn't change the problem of him never playing pro, never winning a major award, never playing at the top level of his sport, or that notability is not temporary, and a burst of news stories related to one event does not satisfy WP:N. Resolute 05:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Actually it really added most everything. Everything in the WP:LEAD needs to be covered in the body, as does any thing in an infobox, as both are summaries. And per WP:V it all needed to be cited. As to size, take a look at coverage of athletes, that is a rather important component, that's why the infobox has a space for it. And he did play at the top level of amateur hockey. As to burst, which burst of stories? Around the draft or around his death? Aboutmovies (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - He is notable. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

Delete I don't see how his death confered any notability sufficient to overcome the deficiencies that led to the first deletion. Maxa megalon 2000 06:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Unfortunatly, he died too soon to be of any notability. Dynad00d (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment if that is your logic then we should delete the article on Anne Frank. NorthernThunder (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  - An FA, shall I add. Editorofthewiki 21:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Anne Frank was the subject of a major and very famous book that has easily stood the test of time. Mickey Renaud has had a few articles written about him in the newspaper. Patken4 (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable hockey player. Lugnuts (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep per above. ----SpeedKing (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. If we're keeping Steven Kazmierczak, we're keeping this article. — ^`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE^` 17:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment What does that have to do with anything? One person is notable and the other is not. Just because he did something horrible doesn't mean he is not notable. -Djsasso (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Actually he make a great point. How are mass murderers more notable than minor-league players? People keep linking policies to me but here's one: WP:Wikipedia is not paper. I certainly don't see Wikipedia bandwith getting used up anytime soon, and then we can delete the article. Editorofthewiki 18:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Quite simply because he met the notability requirements of long term notability. Mickey Renaud will not remain notable over the long term. He is only newsworthy because he died recently. WP:Wikipedia is not paper does not apply to just letting any random non-notable person have an article. -Djsasso (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
      - A mass murderer is more notable than a minor league hockey player? If no one else, Renaud's death has a major impact on his family, friends, and team. Any non-notable person would be you, while this guy had extreme talent with an unfortunate death. He was notable for how he lived, not how he died. Death only reimbursed the factthat he is notable. Editor of the wiki 18:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Again he was not a minor league player, he was an amateur junior player. If he was a minor league player we would not be having this afd. He did not play professionally, he did not win any major awards, he had no means of being notable while he was alive. Nothing has changed since the article was last deleted except that he died. -Djsasso (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Ahemhem, that debate only received a total of, beside yourself, 3 comments. And his death is another thing to add to his notablity, to turn semi-notable people into notable people. If you don't like Keeley Dorsey, see Natasha Collins, another actor with a mysterious death. There IS a precedent, but not your deletionist agenda as you may think. Editor of the wiki 19:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Again you keep trying to compare apples an oranges. That article has an actress who was on a nationally televised show. And again, he did not have a mysterious death unlike her who was murdered. And death does not create notability if there was none to begin with. And its sort of ironic that you are saying I have a deletionist agenda when most people think I am far too inclusionist when it comes to hockey articles. -Djsasso (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        If you want to argue precedents, I could give you dozens of athletes whos articles were deleted due to lack of notability, some of whom were drafted higher than Renaud, and all of whom the consensus was that being a junior athlete is not an inherent claim to notability. That Wikipedia's nature tends to create conflicting precedents is exactly why WP:WAX is a bad AfD argument. Reso lute 19:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        (Edit conflict) I was one of the principle voters to keep in those afds, she was not murdered, just perhaps drugs supplied to her. Again, she was semi-notable during her career just as he was semi-notable during his. Death only reimbursed their notability. I was not "trying to compare apples an oranges", I was just stating that these two are best known for their death, but they were also at least semi-notable during life. Again, we are only feeding the monster that is systemic bias by deleting this article but keeping Dorsey. Editor of the wiki 19:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        I happen to think its the other way around, keeping more and more of these articles is a side effect of systemic bias. Again there dozens upon dozens of articles I could list that show that the precedent is that being a junior athelete is not notable. If you want specific hockey example all you need to do is click on the list of hockey related afds up at the top of this page and then click on archive and you will have quite a few since the archive was started a few months back. -Djsasso (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Most of them weren't drafted and most weren't the captain of their team and most didn't die so young. Editor of the wiki 19:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Actually most of them were drafted and most of them were drafted before him. Being drafted is extremely common for hockey players playing in that league, which is why it does not make one notable. -Djsasso (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        That wasn't my only point. Editor of the wiki 19:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Yes, but it is already well established that dying young does not make one notable. That is pretty much the entire reason behind WP:MEMORIAL. As for being a captain, again there is 90 (give or take one or two) captains per year in the CHL. So being a captain again is not really all that notable either. -Djsasso (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        How can you say that being a captain is not notable. Here are my points and yes it is common but so what. He was drafted, he was captain of a team and a rising star. He died young and several large and well known media companies produced obits. I know i should not refer to articles X & Y but there are several less important articles out there! Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Sometimes a death can create notability for someone who was pretty borderline before. The death of an NHL prospect is rare, and it has an impact on the NHL and the minor league. The OHL will be honouring him this season by putting his number on all helmets for the remainder of the season. It's a national news story getting attention from Canadian Press, the Globe and Mail, Canwest Global, the NHL network, and many others. In my view, this article isn't serving as a memorial - it's serving as documentation of an uncommon event in hockey history.-Wafulz (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete: Sorry, his untimely death, while tragic, still does not change the fact that he fails WP:BIO and Nobability Standards as agreed to on WP:HOCKEY. --Pparazorback (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP. If Mickey Renaud is notable enough to be listed in the "Death during hockey career" section, why shouldn't people be able to read up on who he was and a bit about him? Are we honestly running out of space on the internet that we can't have a page devoted to this great man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.194.10 (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- That is actually one of the uses of lists, to list players that might not otherwise be notable enough for their own articles. -Djsasso (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ I was going to say delete or merge, but he could be considered notable. His Death in on CBC found here: CBC News Story --Bhockey10 (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- As mentioned earlier, his death is newsworthy. But newsworthy and notable are two different things. -Djsasso (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Djsasso is correct, Delete this player does not meet the Player Notablity--Bhockey10 (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Other than the fact that the subject of the article is deceased, this is an eerily similar discussion to one that happened a few weeks back regarding numerous articles about U.S. college soccer players who had been selected in the first round of the MLS draft. The problems with that discussion, as with this one, are contradictory interpretations of WP:BIO and projects on the specific sport that set notability guidelines that were more strict than the general ones.

I'll make the same point now that I did then - you cannot define a sport as professional, and the fact that professional hockey exists doesn't exclude an amateur hockey player from acheiving notability. Almost all sports can be competed at both the professional and amateur level, and hockey is no exception. So, a hockey player can meet the test of WP:BIO because they've "competed in a fully professional league" or they can meet the test of WP:BIO because they've "competed at the highest level in amateur sports" and they have secondary sources published about them. If the community here has generally taken the position that the OHL is an amateur league - and more on that in a second - then I think it's a completely defensible position that it's at the highest level in amateur hockey (along with the Quebec and Western leagues and the NCAA Division 1). I also see at least two secondary sources referenced in the article from prior to his death, and there are doubtless more out there. As such, he meets that test of WP:BIO.

However, here's a more radical thought to throw into the mix, or maybe it's not that radical and already been debated within the project. Is it appropriate to consider the OHL an amateur league? OHL players are drafted from the lower levels of junior hockey, they sign a contract that binds them to the team, and their rights can be traded to another team - none of those are consistent with what we'd generally consider to be characteristics of amateur sports. OHL players are paid a salary - Wikipedia's own article on amateur sports reads, in part, "By definition amateur sports require participants to participate without remuneration.". In fact, due to the fact that they're paid a salary, they're barred from later playing hockey in the NCAA.

Anyway, the last paragraph is just food for thought. Per the first two paragraphs, Keep. Mlaffs (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

But regardless of the above, this player simply isn't notable based on what he's done in his hockey career, which isn't much. Outside of his family, his team, their fans and a small number of others outside of that, no one really had ever heard of him. I've covered hockey for 20 years and I never heard of the guy and I know the top prospects in junior hockey. This guy was NOT one of them. Fact is, he is newsworthy (now), but is not noteworthy per WP:NOTE. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I had heard of him prior to recent events, and I wouldn't come close to saying that I follow junior hockey, although I am a hockey fan. But that's not even relevant. With all due respect to your experience, "I never heard of the guy" might speak to the fact that he's not famous, but it doesn't have any bearing on his notability, which is an entirely different animal. Did he play at the highest level of amateur hockey and does he have valid secondary sources?

To be honest, I can be swayed if there's a feeling that there's not enough secondary source material. What I was most concerned about was making sure this discussion wasn't thrown under the bus by people saying that if he hasn't played pro hockey, then he's not notable. That was the complete content of the first Afd, and it's an incomplete reading of WP:BIO, IMO. Mlaffs (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Hallmark in the history of his league?" Wow...other, otherwise non-notable athletes have died and that didn't make them any more notable. Same as this player. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Question then becomes, does Major-Junior equal the highest level of amateur hockey? It is the highest level of junior hockey, but junior is only for a specific age group: 16-20. College hockey would be above that on the age scale, while you could go down to Midget (15-17 in Canada, 15-18 in the US), Bantam, etc. You also, of course, have senior-amateur hockey. Midget AAA is "the highest level of amateur hockey" for 15 and 16 year olds. Does that make any Midget AAA player notable? Also, the NCAA's draconian rules as it relates to the stipend that major-junior players recieve is well noted, and hardly relevant in determining whether the CHL is professional or amateur. Reso lute 23:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Something to note is that players in the OHL are not paid a salary, its a stipend. No different than a scholarship a player recieves upon playing in the NCAA. The only oganization in the world that considers this pay is the NCAA. Every other hockey body in the world including the internation ice hockey federation considers them amateur and not paid. Not to mention again that the highest level of amateur sports would be the Olympics or the World Championships, any level of sport that restricts by age automatically is not the highest level due to that restriction as the best amateur players may not be that age. -Djsasso (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, it was just food for thought, and not my major argument. However, in hockey, the Olympics and the World Championships are competed for by professionals, at least in North America and most of the other major hockey countries. While amateurs have taken part, in the current environment that's the exception and not the rule. Otherwise, surely "highest level" must refer to competition and not age. The highest age level of amateur hockey in Canada is probably, what, Senior AAA or the Canadian University ranks. But they'd have to be considered a lower level of competition than major junior. Mlaffs (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

But that is actually the point, any amateur level of competition that restricts by age does so that the players of another age level can't beat up on the younger players. So the only true highest level of amateur competitions are ones that don't restrict one segment of players from playing. Whether or not professionals are involved, they are not paid to play in those competitions so while they play in those competitions they are still amateurs. -Djsasso (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep His death his very popular and i was gonna say delete but i saw all over the internet that it was worthy and thats why i say keep for another 3-4 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookeo9 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- But again newsworthy is not noteworthy. -Djsasso (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Statements like "grew an additional inch and added thirteen pounds" show how little real material there is for this guy. Sorry, but there is insufficient notability demonstrated here to warrant a Wikipedia article. WWGB (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. That wasn't exactly one of the article's highlights, but you can't blame them for trying. The Death is the real thing here. Editor of the wiki 03:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete unless it can be shown that he received individual playing honours (was an all-star, top-ten in a major stats category for the league, etc.), for he did play at the highest level of amateur hockey in the world. a few other comments. that he died, as tragic as it is, is irrelevant, as most of us agree on. that there is, as it happens, a lot of media coverage on this tragedy is also completely irrelevent - notability is based achievement or notoreity - Renaud appears not to have the first and unlike a long list of criminals say, not the other either. what should happen is that he gets mention, even a section, on his father's wikipage Mayumashu (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete amateur athlete who died. Sad, sure, but wikipedia is not a memorial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and this is not Len Bias. Quale (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep and close per no consensus. A presumption of notability, according to the guideline, is derived from sources. I would take that a bit further and state it also implies that a person should really be notable for more than just one accomplishment. This player had a storied collegiate and amateur career, and an unfortunate death, so we can close that portion of the discussion. The first sentence of the guideline is that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The subject meets these criteria. Anything to circumvent WP:N defeats having it in the first place. Further, per WP:BIO, "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. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability." There are multiple independent secondary sources so this requirement is also met. These are the only requirements that afford a presumption of notability. Past this, we have only Additional criteria, such as WP:ATHLETE, and "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". MrPrada (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Did you even read the article? This fellow did not have a storied collegiate career as he never even went to college. -Djsasso (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Pardon my ignorance for confusing the Windsor Spitfires and Academic awards with collegiate service. Perhaps the article lacks clarity, but not notability. MrPrada (talk) 07:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    - It also stretches WP:NPOV to describe a 5th round draft pick who won no major awards as having a "storied career" in the first place. Rather, it has already been established time and time again that junior players of Renaud's level are not notable. As you say, a person should be notable for mor ethan one accomplishment. Well, the only "accomplishment" he had was dying tragically. WP:BIO1E. Reso lute 15:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I don't think that he passes the hockey requirements for notability. But I have no objection to the article or information being in Wikipedia. It seems that he came within a few months of meeting the notability on that count, so it would seem that it may be being set too strictly, and appears that way. Sometimes you need the exception to set the rule fairly? Is this article being used as background for the wikinews article? Alaney2k (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Previous afd's supporting junior players not being notable

Since I noticed that User:Editorofthewiki requested previous afd's for junior players not being notable from user:Resolute. I thought I would just list some of the previous afds over only that last couple months that have gone to show that junior hockey players are not considered notable unless they have done something out of the ordinary to achieve notability.

-Djsasso (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

- Thank you for showing me. I agree, not all junior players are notable, but this guy had multiple claims to notability, as listed below. Editor of the wiki 20:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editorofthewiki's notability claims for the article

A sum of what I have been saying:

captain of a major amateur^[1] team (we have articles on baseball minor league players)
was drafted to play in the majors late in year (we have articles on people who were drafted later)^[2]
had a notable father^[3]
has plenty of sources^[4]
had a huge out-of-the-blue death (we have Dorsey and I'm sure plenty of others)

Of course, any one of these would not make him notable, but combined they do. Editor of the wiki 20:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As was mentioned, with 60 teams in the CHL, you will see 75-90 players wear a C in any individual season. This hardly makes an individual notable at this level.
Drafted players with articles typically have gained notability via other means, i.e.: actually played pro. From a hockey side, the only exception thus far have been first round draft picks.
Notability is not inherited. An individual needs to stand on their own merits.
The lasting impact on family members/team is irrelevent. My aunt is not notable for being murdered, despite the lasting impact her death had on my family and her community.
A lot of people have had out of the blue deaths. Again, this is not an indicator of notability.

Reso lute 21:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You fail to see that all these combined make him notable. Also sorry about your aunt. :( Editor of the wiki 21:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that is the point we are making though, if none of the parts are notable, then the whole can not be notable either. -Djsasso (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See Natasha Collins' first AfD, DRV, and second AfD, if that's what you think. Editor of the wiki 21:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS yet again. Reso lute 22:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that the first afd was Delete, DRV was to relist, and second afd was no concensus. So there is no precendent set by those afds at all. -Djsasso (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, none of the above claims make this guy notable per WP:NOTE. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

But it got kept anyway. It would only add to systemic bias if this gets deleted as now Wikipedia favors UK over Canada. Editor of the wiki 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Which is a very silly argument, given many of the editors !voting delete are from Canada. The only thing deleting this article would show is that there is consensus to delete this article. The lack of consensus for any other article is an independent issue. Reso lute 23:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think I've made my point, and have significantly altered the course of this debate. I've shown where I stand, and it seems that this article is going to be a no concensus deal anyway. I hate not having the last word on everything, but I'm just saying good work has been put into this article, and he will be part of the long term record for his team. BTW, I'll nominate Keeley Dorsey for deletion if this gets deleted, but feel free to do it again. Of course, there should be no concensus to delete that article just as it is here. This guy at least has a semblence of notability, and really, who is this hurting if we delete it? I'm going to start editing important stuff. Like Munster, an incredibly short article on such a large city that has an FA in German. Editor of the wiki 17:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, your justification by comparison is irrelevant. You're comparing apples and oranges again. You apparently are ignoring Wikipedia's policies in favor of our own opinion. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm simply showing that the concensus, by providing similar examples (even though in your mind you may not see them as similar), is to keep such articles. I have been saying the same thing over and over so many times I'm almost ready to let this go. What harm is it doing to have this article here? If someone came here looking for info about him they would see this messy discussion and it would disuade them from joining. He IS notable and there are sources to prove it. Editor of the wiki 21:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

He's notable to you. But per WP:NOTE he is not. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Except there is no concensus, all the votes came back no consencus which means the concensus was neither keep nor delete which is very different than concensus to keep. -Djsasso (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the arguements here are off base, the only relevant thing is WP:NOTE as others and Gmatsuda point out. But I'm not sure what Gmatsuda means when they say he doesn' meet note. NOTE says: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That is the key to notability on Wikipedia. So ask yourself: is there significant coverage in RS. Yes, there are at least four articles with significant, non-trivial coverage of this person, and each is in a RS (newspapers/online, mainstream media) that the subject is independent of. It's really that simple. As to the whole newsworthy/noteworthy. At what point does someone transition to noteworthy? Is it two, three, five hundred newspaper articles? One or two articles in the local paper is newsworthy. Your death being a story picked up by the national wire services is noteworthy. As to memorial, that is to prevent an article about your cousin who got run over by a drunk driver and the story made the local paper and you want to make a myspace type memorial. A death that is covered in a national wire service is not a memorial talking about your fondness for the person and how much you miss them and love them. That's a memorial, this is an encyclopedia entry that covers a person drafted into a major sports league who then died and made the national news. Now if you want to go with the whole "one event argument" then I would suggest this be merged into the proper event, Death of Mickey Renaud, the event. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the short burst of new articles that is the issue, give it a month and the event will be forgotten unfortunately. -Djsasso (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, which burst of news? June 2007 or Feb 2008? And as to forgotten, maybe, but that happens when most people die, even those who are notable. Note that all state legislators are notable by default, but how many are remembered after their terms are up or they die? It's not about no more coverage in month or two, its about substantial coverage in multiple RS, i.e. the notability guidelines. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, could you provide some examples of the "burst" of news from June 2007? 5th round draft picks generally do not have multiple articles written about them, and I would be curious to see if Renaud was such an exception. Reso lute 21:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As Resolute mentioned there has only been one burst of news, the June 2007 news story linked in the article is just a news story for the local team that drafted him, that does not constitute multiple independant sources. There was only the one burst. And as for your legislators examples, they will have had constant news storys about them over their term, as opposed to a week long burst of news. A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews does cover topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. -Djsasso (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

But this all proves that he had a very small burst of news in June 2007 and a much larger one now. Yes, as Aboutmovies stated, an article on Death of Mickey Renaud would be okay, similar to Dissappearance of Madeline McCann (a GA!) and Natalee Holloway, whodid absolututly nothing in her life except getting lost and now both articles are larger than, say, Mwai Kibaki. But, due to Aboutmovies' point, it would be better to leave the article the way it is and start making Kibai's article as long as Holloway's. Editor of the wiki 23:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm still waiting for evidence of that little burst in June 2007. You might want to re-check Wikipedia's definition of WP:RS when considering this one. Specifically, the point about non-trivial coverage of which the subject was the focus. i.e.: a basic stat package and two sentence blurb on where player X is from as part of a larger capsule regarding all of a certain team, in this case, the Calgary Flames, draft picks would not satisfy this requirement. Also, WP:WAX is just as meaningless a defence today as it was yesterday as it was Wednesday as it was Tuesday. Reso lute 00:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There are two stories from June. As to non-trivial, the one covering the draft picks is non-trivial coverage of this person. Though it may be non-exclusive, "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." it is not trivial. Trivial would be, "the Calgary Flames drafted Mickey Renaud in the fifth round." You add that they traded up for him, and the other details that are included and that translates into it not being trivial. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OK its now up to ten pre-death WP:RS (4 from June/July), and that's just the ones with significant coverage from one newspaper. Let me know if you need more, and what number it needs to be to constitute a burst. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Both McCann and Halloway, and even more recent examples such as Stacy Peterson, have been stories for more than a few months. They are all perfect examples of Missing white woman syndrome anyway. It is doubtful Renaud is going to be appearing in newspapers months from now. Doing a quick news search on him now and you find most articles from February 18th. There are very few from a more recent time. Patken4 (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I guess that Wikipedia has become the media. We always have to show so much bias in articles it's making me sick. There was not a huge story in June, just a small one, and now there is a huge story. This info should not be deleted any less than McCann or Holloway or Peterson should because he at lest did something during his short life. I want to see their articles to be nominated for deletion. Editor of the wiki 00:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia reacts to the media. McCann, Holloway, and Peterson are still all prevalent in the media many months have their dissappearance/death. Renaud is probably not going to be. Months from now, he will be forgotten. Patken4 (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL Editor of the wiki 01:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't. Thinking he will still be having numerous newspaper articles with him as the subject in a few months is. Patken4 (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

See Michael Fogolin as an example. Similar to Renaud, he died unexpectedly while a junior player. Similar to Renaud, he was the son of a former NHL player. The only difference is that Fogolin wasn't drafted, but he was 17 when he died. Almost five years after his death, there are no news stories about him. A search on his name only reveals articles from the time, none that are more than a few days after his death. More examples include Brent Ruff, who was one of the four Swift Current Broncos who died in the bus accident. His name only comes up in articles relating to his brother Lindy. If Renaud's story does stand the test of time and there are still articles talking about in a few months time, the article could be re-created. Patken4 (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly the point-- Fogolin wasn't drafted. Once the Natalee Holloway Case is over and done with, nobody will remember it unless perhaps because of the media attention it drew. This is a very unusual case--as this one user stated on the talk page, an autopsy will be done in 2 months. The same can go for school shootings. Remember that Illinois school shooting? That was less than a month ago and nothing has happened since. I'm going to nominate Dorsey right now actually. Editor of the wiki 03:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You need to stop comparing one article to another, and talk about this particular articles merits based on WP:NOTE etc. Arguments based on what does or doesn't already exist on wikipedia are not valid arguments to bring up over and over again. -Djsasso (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You can see my notability claims for the article.Editor of the wiki 03:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are my responses to them. 1. Being captain of a junior team isn't notable. Your argument about minor league baseball players falls flat because they are professionals. 2. He was drafted in the 5th round, which isn't notable. Of the players drafted after him in that same draft, only two have articles. Christopher DiDomenico is borderline since he has some team records (though the team is brand new) and was named to the All-Rookie Team in the QMJHL (at least his article claims it). Johan Harju plays in the Elitserien, which is a professional league and makes him notable. 3. His dad being notable has no bearing on him being notable. 4. Has been re-hashed throughout the debate. 5. See point 4. Patken4 (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Fifth round draft picks aren't notable unless they achieve something notable, such as winning a major award in juniors or playing professionally. Patken4 (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the fact that he was named OHL Rookie of the Year and won the 2007 WESPY Male Athlete of the Year Award? Do those count as major awards? They were on display at his funeral. Catauro (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the official OHL rookie of the year award, but it's not Renaud. He also wasn't Wespy Male Athlete of the Year (that was a basketball player). Renaud was the hockey sportsperson of the year. WWGB (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well both awards were on display at his funeral along with a couple more, such as one award commerating his volunteering efforts. Maybe they were fakes though. Seriously though, doesn't the fact that he won the WESPY Male Hockey Player of the Year award make him notable? Catauro (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wespy Awards are limited to Windsor/Essex County (population less than 400 000), so it's a relatively small regional award against limited competition. WWGB (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, if he had been named OHL Rookie of the Year, he would have been notable. The award is a notable achievement. The Wespy Award doesn't appear to be to me. It's a local award and it doesn't appear to get much attention outside of Windsor. In fact, Westminster College also gives out atheletic awards called the Wespy's. Patken4 (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS source should stop being used in the debate. Of course other stuff exists and it helps compare notability which is a very important thing. There are several article that have no notability. The Disappearance of Shannon Matthews should in my view no way have a article. She has been missing 8 days and has a article. Renaud was captain of the team which is notable, son of a NHL star which in many other children of stars have articles and he died at a young age, also with several articles created. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Shannon Matthews has no impact on this debate. Propose that article for deletion if you want, which no one has done yet. And I would hardly call Mark Renaud a "star". He played just over 150 NHL games in an era when there were 21 teams. Patken4 (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm more than willing to switch to WP:WAX as a comment, if you prefer. Resolute 01:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  - What i meant by star was he was notable enough to have a article. I will put the article up for deletion when i finish with this and tbh WP:WAX is basically the same thing. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    - The whole point behind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is that you can't compare the traits of one article based on the traits of another article. Every article is different and need to be treated as such. The whole point of it is that you can't use other articles to compare notability. -Djsasso (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Awards of the subject

People have said that if he won amy major awards an article on him could be necessary. Here's some of the awards Renaud got, strait out of the article:

While playing for the Windsor Spitfires for the 2005 to 2006 season, he was named OHL West Division Academic Player of the Month for Febraury 2006.^[5] In November 2006, he was ranked as the 14th best prospect in the OHL.^[6] During the 2006 to 2007 season, he was selected as an all-star to the Ontario Hockey League's All-Star Game.^[7]^[8]

Perhaps only winning one of these awards would not make a subject notable, but combined and with the death and being captain of the team makes Renaud notable. Editor of the wiki 14:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A series of "no"'s for notability does not make someone notable. Regarding the awards, the Academic Award isn't notable. For the 14th best prospect claim, I would need to see the actual article to see what he is referring to. Is it overall in the entire OHL, is it limited to just his draft class? The all-star game nomination is borderline at best. It would simply make him one of the 40 best players in the OHL. A notable award is generally for best at your position, MVP (play-off/regular season), Rookie of the Year, scoring champion, or post-season All-Star team appearance (which I haven't found if the OHL awards). I will reserve judgement, however, for other members of the hockey project to weigh in to see whether or not the all-star game appearance is notable. Patken4 (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

- Yes, some of them would constitute borderline notability, but combined with his death it pushes him over the top and makes him notable. Please note that this info was added after this debate began. Editor of the wiki 15:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You keep returning to your premise that multiple non-notable events "pushes" someone into notability. Please show me where that is established as Wikipedia policy. As Patken4 points out above, it's as if one "no" is non-notable, but if you accumulate a whole lot of "nos" it becomes a "yes"? I don't get it. WWGB (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A bunch of his nos are actually halves, and ½+½=1. See Natasha Collins, for this is basically the same as that. Editor of the wiki 02:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the biggest load of crap I've heard yet. Actresses are notable for other reasons, not being dead. Renaud is not notable. Not notable to the infinite power is not notable. Flibirigit (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't Tee Ball or NASCAR. You don't get points for trying. You're either notable or you're not. I have a friend whose dad played football for a BCS school. While there, he was a starter on a team that won a major bowl game and finished in the top 5 nationally. Seven teammates played in the NFL, with four of them playing over 7 years. One is even in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was invited to several NFL teams training camps, but couldn't attend any of them because of the Vietnam War. My friends dad is simply not notable enough for an article because he never played professionally and he never won a major college award. These are the notability guidelines. He doesn't get an article because he is close on so many qualifiers. Patken4 (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You really don't understand semi-notability. Collins was semi notable in her life for her role in See It Saw It. Renaud was semi-notable in his life for all my reasons listed above. Death, for both of them, brought them into the notabity. Since Wikipedia is supposedly supposed to cover the event, then we can have Death of Mickey Renaud, but we should not discount his athletic achievements as well. Editor of the wiki 21:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Except the issue is there is no semi-notable. You either are notable or you are not notable. You can't take parts of events and add them together to make something notable. Notability is like a light switch. If you have two light switches in a room half way on, do they still turn on the light? No they don't. -Djsasso (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

So one event can make you notable, right? Aboutmovies (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No I used the wrong word. I meant attribute not event. He is arguring that a number of non-notable things on their own can be combined to make one notable. -Djsasso (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Where are the guidelines for semi-notability? Should we have an article on Carine Desir? She would seem to be semi-notable and I can find plenty of sources talking about her death. The fact is, she shouldn't just as Mickey Renaud shouldn't. Neither met the notability guidelines. Both of their deaths have received media attention, but it doesn mean they themselves are notable unless they get extended coverage from the media. Patken4 (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

See you're screwing up what I'm saying in favor of your deletionist agenda. Take that guy from Illinnois. He was a seminotable author who killed lots of people and gets an article. Or some of the Victims of Virginia Tech. Some were just the same old professors who died horribly. Or even McCann, who did absolutely nothing. One event can push semi-notability into notability. Or one event can turn non-notable people into notable ones. Editor of the wiki 23:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What did Renaud do to be notable? He was never a professional, he never won a major award in juniors. The debate over Steven Kazmierczak has been closed as being premature. A debate on his notability will be determined at a later date. McCann is notable because her disappearance has been news for almost a year. Renaud's death was news for a few days. A week after his death and there are no new articles about him. Patken4 (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as for Carine Desir, what did she do to prove her semi-notability. Heart disease? #1 cause of death in the U.S. Desir and Renaud are not a great comparison. Editorofthewiki 23:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Again you are either notable or you are not. There is no semi-notable. -Djsasso (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet Desmir's death has gotten media coverage, just as Renaud's death did. Patken4 (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Renaud was a junior hockey player and captauin of his team. Editor of the wiki 23:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Both of which do not make a person notable. -Djsasso (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Those facts don't make someone notable. There are close to 1,500 players in major junior hockey right now. There are close to 100 captains in major junior hockey. Patken4 (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Which in my view proves that you need to do something right and notable to beat around 1400 other players in the league to become captain. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. You only have to beat the 20 guys on the roster for your team. You then tpically have to be 19/20, since rookies are never captains, reducing it down to 10 players or less per team. And even then, for a lot of teams, it is an internal popularity contest. We might as well declare that the head cheerleader for every high school is therefore notable. Reso lute 00:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

^ Corrected from above
^ Only that have played, but this seems to be cited so many times that it has to be included.
^ Notability is not based on relation to a notable person, but it helps
^ Some may argue this is from a brief blurb in the news, but it will have a lasting impact on family members and the team. He will be remembered as an aspiring hockey player that kicked the bucket before he made major strokes. He did make minor ones at least, and that entitles him to an article. (Response: Right. He made an impact on his family and his team. That's what...30-40 people at most? Sorry...still doesn't make him notable per WP:NOTE -- Gmatsuda 21:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Oh, and may I add, for the most part, the whole league? This is a highly unusual case and will be a hallmark in the history of his league. ~~~~
^ Renaud scores in the classroom. Windsor Star, March 14, 2006.
^ Parker, Jim. Renaud ranked in top 15. Windsor Star, November 16, 2006.
^ Constantine, Mark. Spirit relish chance to show off mid-Michigan to OHL. Saginaw News, January 17, 2007.
^ Renaud makes all-star squad. Windsor Star, January 17, 2007.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The History of River Trips in Peterborough

Poorly written and formatted; this article does not cite any references or sources. It appears to chronicle and advertise a private enterprise and has been tagged for notability since 21 April 2007. Chrisieboy (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete thought it looked familiar and realised I remember looking at it and contemplating a nomination. Even with a number of searches, including this, I find no evidence of notability among a plethora of wiki mirrors. Travellingcari (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete unless citations to published sources are added. This article reads like an original synthesis based on documentary or oral sources. While it may be very accurate, and I'm sure it's interesting from a local perspective, it's not suited for an encyclopedia article which has to be verifiable from previously published sources. Is there a wiki intended for this kind of article? EALacey (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kris Gate

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete no appearances for a fully pro team in a national league therefore fails WP:BIO and the disputed WP:FOOTY guidelines. No reliable third-party sources to be found so fails WP:N. Etc etc. Good luck to him in netting that contracts with Barcelona, though ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. BanRay 11:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article about a living person who is non-notable per the arguments presented below. Rudget . 16:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Cave

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep He's joined Gateshead F.C., which was a member of The Football League. According to Gateshead F.C.#Current squad, he deserves notability--NAHID 20:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - however, Gateshead are now playing in the Northern Premier League, an amateur league, so any appearances for them don't count as appearances in a "fully professional league", so the player fails Wikipedia's notability criteria. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep notable enough. Sir-Nobby (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - not according to Wikipedia's notability criteria set at WP:BIO. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment I bet you're loving this aren't you Sir-Nobby (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- WP:CIVIL. Corvus cornix_talk 22:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Stong Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully-professional league. Keep !votes above are void as Gateshead do not play in a fully-professional league (they play three divisions below one), and (as noted in the introduction of the club's article) are not actually the same club as that that did play in the Football League. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete No appearances in a fully pro league, therefore not notable, it's as simple as that. Even if we were to accept that the current Gateshead club is the same entity as the original (which it isn't), the argument that he deserves an article because he plays for a club which dropped out of the fully pro leagues before he was even born is patently ludicrous ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete sorry, but he's just not notable BanRay 11:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable lower-level footballer. Sebisthlm (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Albanian pederasty

A likely hoax. Very bizarrely written and in parts, entirely incomprehensible. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a hoax, but it certainly fails to substantiate its basic premise: that culturally accepted pederasty was a practice characteristic specifically of Albanian society (as opposed to, for instance, Ottoman society at large). I have no doubt that reports by 19th-century travellers and ethnographs to that effect may exist, but then, the 19th century was a time of intense racial prejudice, and we'd really need some sanity filter through modern historical research on this issue. The sourcing is entirely outdated, and mostly from primary contemporary sources, which are rendered with far too little critical distance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Obviously not a hoax. See Google scholar for more sources Colonel Warden (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep No, it's not a hoax although I can't blame the nominator for thinking that it might be something both defamatory and untrue. Mandsford (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't nominate just because I thought the article was a hoax. Lines like "Prof. Weigand, who knew the Albanians well, assured Bethe[3] that the relations described by Hahn are really sexual, although tempered by idealism," make absolutely no sense. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess we misunderstood you when you wrote "A likely hoax." Mandsford (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

- - That passage is obviously sticking very closely to some intermediate source without taking due consideration of the context. "X said that Y said that Z...". Demonstrates poor treatment of sources and lack of distance in writing. The article author even took a phrase like "A German scholar who travelled in Albania some years ago(!)", obviously said in one of the sources by a writer in around 1900, and copies it literally into our article so as to make it sound as if it were talking about c.2000. Fail. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep, but edit a bit. I contributed much of the article, but it has been some time and if I did it again now I would change the language. The criticism at the beginning of this discussion, of having too little critical distance is right on the money. The material should have been edited to remove the voice of the original narrator. On the other hand, I do wish that people who start AfD campaigns would do their homework. This is historical material that can easily be cross-checked. --Haiduc (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done some rewording. I would strongly urge you to add your true sources to that article. You were evidently quoting those 1900s reports indirectly. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Also, if this is kept, I'd suggest renaming to Pederasty in Albania. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Granted, I will have to look again for the sources. Why do you suggest re-naming the article? Haiduc (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion is to keep in line with Pederasty in ancient Greece, Pederasty in the Middle East and Central Asia, and Category:Pederasty in the Renaissance. Though I also see Athenian pederasty, Theban pederasty, Cretan pederasty, etc. We should probably stick to one format. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The longer place descriptors really do require a "Pederasty in ..." format, but when the location can be expressed in one word, the other format is more concise and - to my eye - more elegant. I do not think we need force everything into one single pattern, certainly there is no danger of confusion. Haiduc (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My idea about the renaming was that it would be less provocative, to people who'd find "Albanian pederasty" to imply some kind of moral stain on their ethnic identity. "Albanian pederasty", to my mind, carries a somewhat stronger implication that pederasty is something inextricably linked to being Albanian, more so than "Pederasty in Albania", which just describes pederasty as something that used to happen in that place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point but I think that in this case it is the other way around. To use another analogy, it is not as if we had "Albanian smallpox" and changed it to "Smallpox in Albania" since smallpox is the same everywhere and can happen anywhere. In this case we had a local pederastic culture, with its traditions, vocabulary, religious rituals, and literature. It was very much an Albanian construction of pederasty. There was no shame to it, on the contrary, it was very much integrated into the honor code and celebrated. Just because someone today wants to repudiate his national heritage I do not think we are obligated to harness Wikipedia to that cart. To my eye it goes against the very culture of impartiality and respect for history that we are cultivating.Haiduc (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There are obvious and strong reasons for a standard naming format, though I don't really care which one it is. But I would very much like to see a standard and have articles stick to it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the current de facto situation is that we have two formats to suit two very different requirements. In those case where the pederastic customs are relatively uniform and consistent, we have titles in the style of "Athenian pederasty," since, quite clearly, that custom is unitary and definable. In case where we have a collection of separate pederastic traditions, we have titles such as "Pederasty in ancient Greece". In the present case, the Albanian pederastic tradition is documented as a unitary tradition, with a single vocabulary, and rituals that can be identified as specifically Albanian (vellameria is encountered only in Albania and nowhere else, vlamis is strictly an Albanian term). So I see greater accuracy in the present structure, and a blurring of distinctions if we were to adopt a single format to cover unlike topics. Haiduc (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep but rewrite from sources and cut back or better contextualize the literary interpretation aspect, which makes it look fantastic. The original Hahn account, translated, appears in full right in A Dictionary of Albanian Religion, Mythology, and Folk Culture, so it's possible to avoid these fourth-hand interpretations. As Hahn notes, the practice appeared to have survived since Doric times. --Dhartung | Talk 09:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd be careful about that Hahn account. For instance, the ancient "Doric" connection cannot possibly be much more than pure speculation. A 19th-century traveller who had no other means of researching the issue than by sitting down with a few Albanians and chatting with them could not possibly know anything about such continuity. Also, the fact that Elsie in his modern book just prints Hahn's account literally without any further commentary makes me suspicious. It seems to imply Hahn's report is really the only substantial account we have, and there is nothing else in the way of modern research to check it or corroborate it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Haiduc. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep and improve the sourcesMegistias (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. Haiduc makes compelling arguments. Queerudite (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep, encourage rewrite. Wizardman 03:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TAIKOPROJECT

No sources, it was created by Taikoproject (talk · contribs) so it's most likely self-promotion. There's Google hits, but that's not enough to establish notability. JuJube (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep exists [12] but unsourced [13], [14]. JJL (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
As a music group, wouldn't their touring make them pass WP:MUSIC? —Quasirandom (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment If this article survives (and it looks very suspect to me), it should be retitled so it doesn't shout. Unless, of course, the band is really referred to as tee-ay-eye-kay-oh-pee [etc]. -- Hoary (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - only a mention in the Seattle Times. Fails WP:MUSIC. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep This group received attention from a Puerto Rican news, [15] and there is a lot of other independent sources. [16] Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 02:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bencherlite ^Talk 20:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shoddling

Delete per WP:OR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete complete and utter horseshit. JuJube (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is nothing meaningful in this, and it's been tagged by myself as patent nonsense. Speedy delete JuJube (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Concensus - Appears to pass WP:MUSIC via a charting single, but the article is poorly sourced. -Djsasso (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dolla (rapper)

Delete nn rapper sourced to myspace, fails WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete vain vanity in vain, sucka. JuJube (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - he has a song on a sound track. Not a great movie, but notable. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - his music video has been on MTV —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSox (talk • contribs) 20:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep The notability seems weak at the moment because he hasn't released an album yet. But he's signed to a major label and he'll likely be more notable after his first album. And he already has a charting single, which passes WP:MUSIC #2. Also, here are some refs I found from a Google search. Spellcast (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete -- I agree with nominator, it fails Music and poorly referenced. --SSman07 (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G4. -Djsasso (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of sidekicks

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of sidekicks

Articles for deletion/List of sidekicks (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of sidekicks (3rd nomination)

Every fictional character has a sidekick, say for example - if this was to be complete this list will become overcrowded otherwise too indiscriminative. I recommend this to be speedy deleted for tat reason. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Reason for nomination As I want to say this again, this list is too indiscriminate and will never be completed. If it does, it will become way too overcluttered.

Keep no deletion reason given. I There's a common fallacy here: that any list will either be incomplete and therefore worthless, or complete and hence indiscriminate--one or another of these alternatives can and has been used against every list in Wikipedia. A list limited to the notable objects of a type will be neither. It will be as complete as it ought to be, and as discriminating. If this contains those who are notable by being included in WP, it will be properly selective, not indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment, yes I have, my reason is, it is too indiscriminate, every fictions have a sidekick. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete if every fictional character has one, it'll be much too broad. Of course that isn't so, but as Sidekick indicates, there are nonfictional examples too (such as Ed McMahon). Hence a true list of sidekicks would mix fictional and nonfictional cases. I might feel differently about List of superhero sidekicks, say, but this is too broad. JJL (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Keep No coherent reason to delete is provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per the arguments I gave previously. Please see here and here and the decision of the first AfD. The article is a discriminate list that satisfies Wikipedia:Lists. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. The article was previously deleted, but was just recreated (without wikilinks) apparently by copy-pasting from a cache of the deleted page. The subject of the list lacks a clear, neutral, and unambiguous criteria (WP:LISTV#INC). It furthermore conflates fictional characters with real people. - JasonAQuest (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete WP:CSD#G4 - recreation of an article that was deleted at the end of December. Also a GFDL violation, since it appears to be a copy/paste of a mirror site that hadn't updated yet to remove the deleted original. Reso lute 21:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Tagged as G4 speedy. Deor (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete WP:CSD#G4. User:Dorftrottel 21:35, February 19, 2008
Delete As a recreation of an article deleted under WP:AfD, it appears to qualify for immediate {{speedy}} deletion. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot of The Thing

WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and this clearly violates the "Plot summaries" subsection. Aside from that, there appears to be no reason why this film's plot should be forked from the main article instead of just summarized like every other film article. It's an unreferenced mess to boot. Nufy8 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge and rewrite this should be with the article about the film. ImperviusXR (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete There's already The Thing (film) # Plot. This is the type of overly detailed, easy to write, play-by-play that isn't necessary for appreciation of the John Carpenter film. Mandsford (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Too long, doesn't summarise the plot, contains material that isn't actually in the film (and so shouldn't be in its summary) mixed in with an OR-ish/POV writing style. Geoff B (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete no need for this fork; if anything is valuable here, can merge. JJL (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Does it WP:SNOW in Antarctica? Yes, yes it does. --Dhartung | Talk 09:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doe Ray Me

Non-notable, unsourced song full of original research. It seems to be from a deleted album. Spellcast (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, it lacks of importance Vacanzeromane (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 17:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bi Writers Association

No assertion of notability for this organization. Already mentioned in Sheela Lambert. Unless notability can be demonstrated, article doesn't add much worth merging. Jfire (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reso lute 19:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete based on above comments made. Radagast83 (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Huaraz Satyricon

No evidence of RS coverage, and there's nothing encyclopedic about this 'cafe'. Wikitravel already covers it in their article on the town. Travellingcari (talk) 05:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Looking at the Google hits, I can't see anything that would make this establishment notable. Bláthnaid 13:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reso lute 19:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA). Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phoenician gene

There are no reliable, expert sources that use the term "Phoenician gene" and only one scientific paper that discusses a "Phoenician genetic marker". A lengthy search for sources has wielded nothing, and the article has been tagged with a request for sources that would establish notability since August 2007 - again, garnering no such sources. I would have thought it was a speedy delete, but it was recommended to open a formal AfD. And so here we are ... Tiamut^talk 05:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment, there's no reason this can't be true. If somebody can figure out which Y haplotype the article is talking about, it should be redirected there. Blast Ulna (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to be Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA), or one of its subclades (which don't have articles), so it should be redirected there. Blast Ulna (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  - What source are you basing this conclusion on? Is it the one at www.phoenicia.org linked in the article? Tiamut^talk 11:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Here is one. People read too much into these things; such markers are usually found in a bare plurality of a population, and people then (as now) were splashing their genes around as fast as they could. Blast Ulna (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
      - Fascinating read. So if I understand you correctly, you would like to see the article redirected to Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA), rather than retaining it at the current title? Tiamut^talk 11:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Yes, or deleted, because a) it's not a gene, and b) it's not exclusively Phoenician. Blast Ulna (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Thank your comments and clarification. Tiamut^talk 12:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a valid reason for deleting this article. Please see the discussion on the Phoenician gene talk page. Also Google gives a few hits for this term; so this term must exist (we're not talking if it is correct; that is for the experts to decide). Furthermore, Wikipedia's article on Canaan links to it; so this term is being used in Wikipedia.

Now, I created this article; taking its information from the Canaan article; hoping that someone with some expertise will come and edit this. So if this source isn't good enough for this article; then it would seem to me that it shouldn't be good enough for the Canaan article; and therefore that paragraph should first be deleted.

I am no expert on this particular subject and couldn't care less, if this article stays or goes; but due to my history with Tiamut and what I've written about this on my user page; I don't think it appropriate that she should be the executioner. Therefore, I am deleting the deletion tag; and should anyone else want to nominate this article for deletion; they are more then welcome to do so. Itzse (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Itzse, it is very poor form to insuinuate that my intentions in nominating this article for deletion stem from some kind of personal grudge. It is also against Wiki policy for you delete the deletion nomination tag, and accordingly, I've restored it. Please let other editors discuss whether the article is a legitimate entry or not. AfD's are a public process. My nomination has nothing to do with our history or disagreements and everything to do with my longstanding concern that this article simply fails to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 11:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the article is that one cannot say for sure that the ~~gene~~ marker is from a particular ethnic group if it is also found in Kurds, Greeks, and others far afield. The source used is, to put it kindly, overly optimistic about the possiblity of reconstructing with certainty the history of a people by looking at genetic markers. Blast Ulna (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, the marker was present in Phoenicians. But, since all the sources indicate that Pierre Zalloua looked at the J2 haplogroup, and Wikipedia already has an article on that haplogroup, this article needs to be redirected there. Then edit that article with the information about the Phoenicians. Blast Ulna (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA). It is not a "gene". And even the only source cited in the article in fact claims the marker characterizes a wider Mediterranean population, not only Phoenicians. On the other hand, some details from the article can be perhaps moved to Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA). Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reso lute 19:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect as suggested by Andrzej. This is a speculative article, and should be redirected to the one where the actual knowledge of the subject is discussed. DGG (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA) per Andrzej and Blast Ulna. Majoreditor (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete - Appears to be non-notable. -Djsasso (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tomi Huhtanen

The magazine, or the party he is adviser to, may be notable but there's no evidence he is. Travellingcari (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reso lute 19:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete this search didn't turn up anything useful either. — Scientizzle 17:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If a transwiki to wiktionary is in the best interests of both sites then I highly encourage it. Wizardman 03:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lamer

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so we don't necessarily need an article about every word that exists. This is all unsourced original research, and from what I can tell lamer simply means "one who is not good", it's a vague disparaging slang term. Xyzzyplugh (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The term is put in context by explaining the subcultures involved. It provides references to support it; one is a dictionary, but the rest appear to explain the term in its subcultural context as well. Fishal (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The references would need to be reliable sources. They are not. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, dictdef, no reliable sources to write an article from, merely to make a word definition from. Corvus cornix_talk 22:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, notable part of internet culture that deserves an article that goes beyond a dictdef, e.g. etymology and use, and its cultural significance. User:Krator (t c) 23:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then please point to some reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 23:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, "etymology and use" are also properly part of a dictionary, not of an encyclopedia. If there were something encyclopedic to say about lamers (and not about the word "lamer"), I'd say it could be kept, but this article is purely about the term, and says nothing encyclopedic about lamers (as opposed to merely the term "lamer"). Chuck (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, more than enough cultural aspects to the term for an encyclopedic article, but it needs much better sourcing. --Dhartung | Talk 09:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- After 4 1/2 years and 350+ edits, there still isn't one reliable source. Unless we plan to abandon all of our policies and just make things up ourselves, this can't stay. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  - The fact that nobody's working on it is not a reason to delete: WP:NOEFFORT. Fishal (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, an an important part of historical internet culture. It needs to be better sourced.
~~Keep.~~ Some Lamers apparently write books.[17] There's even a song about the phenomenon, by Charles Trenet. Lame kidding aside: The term has been discussed in books about internet jargon and I feel it can easily be made into more than just a dictdef, accounting for the etymology and different meanings in various subcultures.[18], [19], [20] User:Dorftroffel 19:51, February 22, 2008
- All of those links were to dictionary definitions of the term, basically. Which helps to demonstrate that this is an actual word and should likely belong on Wiktionary. You are arguing that we should use original research to write an article, using only dictionary definitions as our sources. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Also, a section about the term as used in popular culture may be a good idea. Or maybe not. User:Dorftroffel 02:17, February 23, 2008
Could it be merged to luser or at least transwikied to wiktionary? It is only a dicdef now & some of the article is unverifiable. But some info might be able to be put to use & it'd be nice to have it a redirect to either of those two places. --Karnesky (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. It's a term that's too used (and misused) for us to not cover it.84.78.233.117 (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I'd vote to keep the article, even if it needs to be more thoroughly sourced. The main source is The Jargon File, which is a seasoned enough source to quell accusations of being (the article) original research. Maybe a merge with luser or a transwiki link would be useful too. Scarbrow (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. The sources cited are not reliable other than Merriam-Webster. The definition in Merriam-Webster source ("3 slang : not being in the know") doesn't support the bulk of the article. PKT (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Business control systems

Poorly written, orphaned, unreferenced, and I suspect not a notable or commonly used concept. Jfire (talk) 06:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Agree that it's probably not notable and even if it were there's nothing in the article to save. Wikidemo (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reso lute 19:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, vehemently. Original research, as pointed. Pitiful writing: scarcely intelligible, abstract to the point of meaninglessness, vague to the point of evasiveness, so bad that it's hard to choose a brief excerpt to mock. Suggest that it is designed to create additional conspicuousness for a buzzword as a part of some sort of stealth spam campaign. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep/Merge The article has been written around an analogy with process control. The general concept is definitely out there but this title and analogy are not especially popular. Perhaps merge with Management Science, Management Information Systems, Management cybernetics or Decision Support Systems Colonel Warden (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete This is an essay, pure and simple (and a poor one at that). It would be hard to merge any of this content into related topics Murtoa (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as this is original research which fails WP:V.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Consensus = Keep. --VS ^talk 11:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hema Sinha

She may be "popular" but I see no evidence in English (blog sites, video clips) or Tamil (can't read it, but it's blog sites) that this VJ is in any way notable. Travellingcari (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - per this (hindu article). I see notability is also quite established in search. --Avinesh Jose T 11:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment that's about her fashion and wardrobe, it in no way establishes notablity as a VJ. What RS do you see in the search? I see a lot of blogs and forum posts. I'm curious as to what I missed. Travellingcari (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I see around 500 google hits, which we can’t simply ignore. It is true that some re-directs to blogs. --Avinesh Jose T 04:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

ghits!=notability, I didn't examine every one of the 500 but the vast majority of the ones I saw are blogs, video, forum posts and yahoo groups. Nothing that establishes notability per WP:N and WP:BIO Travellingcari (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Still, I’m ok with that Hindu article. --Avinesh Jose T 05:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - over and over I see people "proving" notability on AFD pages or on Talk pages. There is one and only one way to demonstrate notability and that is verifiable references to reliable sources on the article page. Anyone who wants to keep this or any article should put references on the article page. If any of those 500 Google hits are for reliable sources and are non-trivial coverage, then add them to the article. Our decision about whether to keep or delete the article should be based on what is in the article, not on what is said here. If someone improves the article to be verifiable and notable, I would be happy to keep the article. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Where exactly does it say that our decision on whether to keep or delete an article should be based on what's in the article? WP:N speaks about the notability of the subject, not what's in the article; WP:DP says "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion".--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Avineshjose. And second Prosfilaes' comment. If a topic has potential sources to build an article, then we add them to the article, not wikilawyer it to death. Furthermore, there's no requirement in WP:N that someone "establish notability as an X"; notability is presumed from coverage. The idea that someone has to have "fame and importance" in order to have a Wikipedia article was rejected long ago. cab (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- re "establish notability as an X", the article discussed her being a VJ, therefore the sources to establish notability as a vj should cover that, not her fashion. I still have yet to see a single RS coverage of her notability as a VJ. Travellingcari (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  - No, sources do not have to cover people in the context of their profession to make them notable. If she is notable for her sense of dress, or her house, or whatever else, then she is notable period regardless of how she earns her paycheck, and notability is judged by coverage in reliable sources, of which The Hindu is definitely one. cab (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    - I'm sorry but I disagree. The article is about her as a VJ, her dressing well is not encyclopedic in the slightest. By that logic I could claim to be the Queen and give you an article about my being included in a book. That doesn't make me notable or encyclopedic. But we're allowed to disagree and we'll see what happens. I still say she's not notable. Travellingcari (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, we add them to the article. Saying on this page that sources exist does not make the article any better. Until someone actually adds them to the article, future editors can't verify notability. I just wish that people who assert that there are sources, would actually go ahead and add them to the article. This AFD debate and many others would disappear if people went ahead and added them instead of simply saying that sources exist. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Topics are judged by whether the topic has sources, not the article. Your time is much better spent making simple edits yourself instead of haranguing others on AfD discussions, if you feel that strongly. cab (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of Star Trek on NBC

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/History of Star Trek on NBC

This article repeats all the information available on the List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes and then goes onto say that the information will differ from location to location in the US, making it rather vague

Keep Not really. It's a bit more than an episode guide, more of a summary of how the broadcast history by the NBC network during the 150 or so weeks from September 8, 1966, to September 2, 1969, including reruns, pre-emptions, etc. Turns out that Requiem for Methuselah was the last episode actually broadcast nationally, although Turnabout Intruder was the last new one shown. While I don't endorse this type of treatment for every series, Star Trek is one of the few classic shows that has a notable history. Mandsford (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment, it's not an episode guide, that already exists here. It's not the only place where we learn of the spotted history of Star Trek on NBC, that is included in the main article on the series. All it really does is tell us when one television network first showed the episodes, in certain parts of the US, which the episode guide already does. Alastairward (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete As it is, I don't think it provides anything encyclopedic that's not already at List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes. I don't think repeat broadcast dates are notable. At the same time, there is potentially encyclopedic information which could go into an article with this title, and which is not currently under Star Trek: The Original Series, such as the letter-writing campaigns which saved the show from cancellation after the first and second seasons. My preference, I think, would be to add that under Star Trek: The Original Series, and split it off into a separate, re-created article if there were later enough material to justify that. Chuck (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep with any other show (possible exception of The Simpsons) this would be cruft, but this particular show is so notable (even as it affects the creation of cruft), this week-by-week analysis is important.
Delete - Wikipedia is not TV Guide. The original air dates should be in a list of episodes and in the articles on the individual episodes. This article is pointless and ridiculous. Otto4711 (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. While the topic has some marginal notability, and the original air dates are (for some fans) important (for some reason), this article is derived from primary sources and really shows no particular notability. The material could be transwikied to Memory Alpha or Memory Beta via GFDL. --Dhartung | Talk 09:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. As per Otto4711s comments, this article is pointless and ridiculous. Chrisieboy (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Polly wanna cracker?!" 63.84.72.153 (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Transwiki' to MemoryAlpha. Though the campaign to keep StarTrek on the air would be notable. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no assertion of actual notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Zicker

Non-notable actor per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete per this discussion and speedy delete as repost G4) after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovechild. Take it to WP:DRV if you disagree, but don't just recreate the article. Fram (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lovechild (Nicole Wray album)

Fails WP:MUSIC, deleted and recreated by same editor multiple times under multiple socks. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as nom. Cloudz679 (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom, Speedy delete per CSD G4 if applicable. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Note that this article's deletion logs will not show the previous deletions, as the previous four versions were under the titles Lovechild and Fantasia Lovechild (mixtape). --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, I vote it should be kept. This article contains reliable sources and meets Wikipedia needs. Soccermeko (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The article may or may not "(meet) Wikipedia needs." This is a moot point. The article is not notable to the point that it should have an article under Wikipedia's standards. It does not demonstrate "substantial coverage from reliable sources."

There are seven listings of current sources, but fewer actual sources.

1) Cited as the source for a release date for "Lovechild", the closest thing it says is "I'm still working on my album, which is titled Love Child..." If the article is discussing a different album called "Lovechild", it does not make it clear. If "Lovechild" is really "Love Child" it certainly does not give a date that this was released (in point of fact, of course, neither one has been released). Is it a reliable source? The source is ballerstatus.com. I see nothing whatsoever indicating that they are a reliable source in our terms.

2) This is a duplicate of #1, cited to show the album "spun off" the single "If I Was Your Girlfriend." The interviewer mentions "really feelin'" the song, but there is no mention of it coming from this in-progress album. The song was released November 23, 2004 -- four months prior to the interview cited.

3) This source is merely reprinting material from the artist's website. As a primary source, it does nothing to demonstrate notability. In any event, it merely states that the then forthcoming album "Fantasia Love Child" would be released in the fall. The article is undated.

4) This is one of two sources (along with #5) listed for the same quote (which a cite in the middle of it to #3). Both are links to the same November 29, 2004 interview, with Wray explaining the origin of the name. The site, allhiphop.com, is an aggregator of media. Inclusion of this particular interview is meaningless in terms of notability.

5) See #4.

6) www.myspace.com/msnicolewray states that "Fantasia Lovechild (Bootlegg)" had been leaked on the net. No indication of notability.

7) www.myspace.com/therealnicolewray supposedly Wray (this time...) saying the album "Lovechild" would be released "this" fall. Again, no evidence of notability.

Taken together, these 3 sources (and 2 myspaces) show that:

1: Wray mentioned the album (or versions of it) in two interviews and on her website. This is not an indication of notability.

2: Wray or her fans (we can't be sure which) say a bootleg version is out and the official version will be out maybe we think this fall. This is not an indication of notability.

Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete The user Soccermeko, who created and edited this article, has been posting fake, unsourced stuff on Nicole Wray's wikipedia page for awhile. There has never been an official track listing ever released for this album; nobody knows if it was even actually finished. Mahalia56 (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Ballad of Stuffed Trigger

Fails WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

~~Redirect~~ to The_Residents#1969-1972:_Residents_Unincorporated. This album is not notable enough for its own article. Since it has been mentioned in books [21], [22] it is a plausible search term. Bláthnaid 19:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Changing to merge. Torc is correct. Bláthnaid 20:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's mentione in more then 2 books, I know it's mentioned in "Uncle Willie's Highly Opinionated Guide To The Residents" which unfortunately is out of print and is selling for around 70$ a copy. I'm sure it's mentioned in other books also. So at this point we have at least 3 published sources. Ridernyc (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect agree with redirect. Also think we need to take a look into this section of WP:Music, if an unreleased album is by a notable act and can pass WP:V I see no reason why it can not have it's own article. At this time however I have no time to work on this article and agree a redirect is fine. Ridernyc (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by the way I would also like to point out that the nominator is using the wrong term, This is not an unreleased album as defined by WP:MUSIC, it's actually more like a demo. If he is going to cite WP:Music in dozens of prods and AFD's he could at least take the time to cite the correct sections. 00:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)

Comment No, it's not "more like a demo." Actually, it's a "demo album (which) has never been released in any form". No, it's "a suite ... but not a complete album." Or maybe it's an "alleged recording". Aw heck, it's what the category says it is: [[Category:Unreleased albums]]. So, if it's a demo, it is "in general not notable". If it's a suite, it's not "appropriate (unless) there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" (there isn't). If it's an "alleged recording" it...um...er...whatever. I believe my choice actually sets the bar lower than most. If it fails this one, it fails them all. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You still could take the time to at least understand what you are nominating and cite the correct section of policy. Plus everything above is verifiable in published sources. Ridernyc (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that what I nominated is an article that never clearly decides what its topic is. It is and was clear that the article doesn't know what this is/was/might be/might have been. Of four references to what it is, two of them say "unreleased album". I went with the concensous and didn't detail this moot point. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"The Ballad of Stuffed Trigger is the title of a recording by the then-unnamed avant garde group, The Residents." I don't know what's unclear about that. It's a recording; it's under no obligation to declare itself an album, single, or EP. BTW, what's "concensous"? —Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge, not simply redirect. There is nothing wrong with the content of the article. If the content will not fit or makes The Residents article stylistically awkward, default to keep. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 20:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

At this time a merger is fine, but I feel eventually the article will need more sub article due to size and style guidelines. Ridernyc (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge to main artist page. Most of the sources fail WP:RS aside from the one at GEPR which says no more than the name of the album, or whatever you want to call this recording. Cloudz679 (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge to main artist page. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Argument per WP:N is pretty strong.--Kubigula (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Besse

Previously speedy deleted; consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 7 was to restore and list at AfD. Sources are included at the linked deletion review. Issues to be considered include notability and possible violation of WP:NPOV. Neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 05:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not check out the DRV debate so I'll probably just repeat what was said there.

a) Never mind the notability guidelines, the question is "is there sufficient reliable coverage to construct a decent article"?

b) Is there a way to impose NPOV.

I'd say yes to a) and I don't think one can seriously argue that sources are lacking. As for b), I think it's doable but the article needs an entire re-write (random example: "on which he has fought to expand North Carolina's use of clean, renewable energy" is definitely slanted). I'd propose keeping and stubifying the article. If similar problems reoccur, delete: we can't let Wikipedia be hijacked by public relations offices of minor political figures. Pichpich (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The article should not be deleted, since the subject is notable, due to his status as a major candidate for Lt. Governor. It should be improved. I hope to work on it. Awbeal (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. Notability guidelines specify that candidacy for office is not sufficient for notability. I don't see anything else in the current article to achieve notability. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Undecided City Councilman in Winston-Salem NC, pop. 223,000. We've accepted city councilman in smaller cities before that. I'm not sure that's right--I would put the cutoff at perhaps half a million population.On the other hand, I would accept major party nominees for national legislatures and state governorships, but not for lesser offices. He would not qualify there because, first, he's not yet even his party's nominee., and 2nd, if he wins the nomination it would still just be for lieutenant governor. We really might do well t os et some simple fixed standards so we wouldnt have to go case by case this way. DGG (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 18:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - WP:N per precedent as city councillor from a large city. Plenty of WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep due to coverage by reliable sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, though cleanup and citing would of course be very helpful. Wizardman 03:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GIVE Center East

Non notable magnet school, if we don't delete maybe redirect to district? Mr Senseless (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This particular district is the largest in the state of Georgia and redirecting to the district will clog that page. This school is also not a magnet school but an alternative program for students with discipline issues and the program that they provide to rehabilitate their students for reentry to their home schools is worthy of mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielsobczak (talk • contribs) 05:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge, an unremarkable alt-school. Merge to the district. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 11:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC).
Merging would be ill advised as this district has an excess of 100 schools and would cause confusion to the reader of the district page. Again, due to the unique nature of this program within the district, it is worthy of mention and would be of interest to people researching information on the district. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielsobczak (talk • contribs) 23:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep as it meets my standards for high schools - around a while, large, etc. Needs some cites. Bearian (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was this article is covered by an arbcom injunction and may not be deleted or merged. Procedural close without prejudice to a future nomination when the injunction is lifted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jasmine 'Jazz' Summers

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jasmine 'Jazz' Summers

Articles for deletion/Jasmine 'Jazz' Summers (2nd nomination)

Complete speculation with no supporting evidence. Google reveals no results except for "fan forum" posts relating to this character. Suggest it is deleted until she joins (in which case, she'll be added to the minor characters page). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 18:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 04:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oneonta Gulf Coast Collaboration

Appears to fail WP:Notability specifically WP:Corp Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment There are many, many local relief efforts for hurricanes and other disasters; while such efforts are worthy, many of them may not be WP:Notable enough to rate an ecyclopedia entry. I am willing to be proven wrong, however. Perhaps this information can be merged somewhere suitable?--Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete: This appears to be merely a campus organization and non-profit. It's laudable but not actually notable. Therefore, while we praise their altruism, it's not appropriate to have an article on them now. (Notability claims would have to be in effectiveness, fund raising, and/or work done; none such are offered.) Utgard Loki (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 18:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Angelo (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Mailey

Yet another contested prod. Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league (the Scottish Third Division is not fully-pro). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. BanRay 11:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. The rules are clear, you have to play professionally to be notable. -- Atama ^chat 18:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 09:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW as NN, OR. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Resource Attention Deficit Disorder

Article is not sourced, 0 google hits, probably WP:OR. Samohyl Jan (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Actually, sounds more like someone who works for RADD or otherwise finds fault with them... Probably a hoax. Anyway, yes, unsourced, can't find any sources, etc. Only editor of the article has three edits: two creating this one and one adding the acronym to a disamb page. An odd combination for a beginner. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Everything I would say has already been said. - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 19:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Step hen 23:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Approaches to International Law

This is just a research essay, and it does not describe itself. It instead persuades people to use "approaches to international law", whatever this is. This article is very scholarly and it appears that only experienced in law would be able to understand this article/essay. It would need a very substantial rewrite to make this an actual article. The essay is also very confusing to read. _contribs STYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 18:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep but improve sourcing and give it a good WP:LEAD to orient the lay reader. This looks like a useful article on critical approaches (or frameworks) to the study of international law, a valid topic of some importance. Could stand improvement, but does not lack sources and we do include material that is very advanced in law, in science, and all other areas. (We just try to make it as accessible as possible.) --Dhartung | Talk 09:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Article is valid and useful, although current content needs improving. The JPSwirlface (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Account created today. --Nlu (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Please see my userpage if you wish to learn more. I have a lot of past experience as a vandal, but now wish to edit constructively. I chose this article at random from the afd category, and reviewed it as a constructive (and previously uninvolved) editor. If there is a consensus that everyone here is unhappy with this, I will of course retract my vote and desist until I am considered an established user. The JPSwirlface (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    - The closing admin (who will not be me) is authorized to evaluate your vote as however he/she sees fit. --Nlu (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
      - Ok, obviously I'll accept that. I don't want to go making any enemies at this point. The JPSwirlface (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
keep and improve. It is nice to have a single article as a starting point for a complex subject. Links, references and footnotes can be added as part of the normal improvement process. Hmains (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In the Pictures

This article should be deleted, per WP:CRYSTAL. It seems that all Raven-Symoné related articles are a victim of this. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, per nomination. Clearly fails WP:CRYSTAL PKT (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 closed as list have been reincorporated into article as per GA review suggestion of using collapsible lists, hence this list no longer required. Gnan garra 11:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Passenger and Crew list of the SS Gothenburg

(A previous editor tagged it with a {{prod}} for notability that was removed, so I have listed it here.) Not sure if this list meets notability requirements. WP:BIO states that lists of people are assumed to be lists of notable people, and not exhaustive lists of all people associated with a notable subject. The ship is notable and has its own article at SS Gothenburg. Prior to this article being forked off from SS Gothenburg there was some discussion here as to the notability of the passenger and crew lists. Bellhalla (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge to SS Gothenburg, which already lists the 22 survivors. This would be 112 names at most, and would add to the parent article. Mandsford (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep the mentioned discussion on notability reached a consensus that the information was notable but concluded that it could be better presented in a separate list. The majority of the passengers and crew of the SS Gothenburg have had places name in their honor, many of the passengers have notability in their own right. This list was made into a daughter article after extensive discussion about how best to present the information on both the vessel as well as the Passengers and Crew. Gnangarra 00:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I followed your link to make sure you were talking about the same discussion I had read. I didn't really see much of a consensus there. It looks like 2 thought it should be moved to its own article (I think), while 1 (me) felt it should be removed (but leaving any notable individuals). I had also posed a question as to why WP:BIO should have been excepted (as was suggested by another editor), a question which was never addressed. — Bellhalla (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  - comment ...majority of the passengers and crew of the SS Gothenburg have had places name in their honor... that show that the list is of people of note, in addition there were a number of people who are independently in their own right prior to boarding the vessel. WP:BIO is about list in terms of alumni where there are/will be infinite numbers of people who pass through the doors over time, such lists should not be comprehensive list of Alumni. It doesnt address passengers of one vessel involved in one incident where a significant majority have had places named in their honor. While some these people may warrant articles individually, many are only notable is from this one event thus combined into a single list is an appropriate way to display the detail, see WP:LIST. Ive moved the article to List of passengers and crew on the SS Gothenburg Gnangarra 10:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Comment: By your reasoning that all on the list are notable because they were aboard Gothenburg seems to point the argument to WP:BIO1E — Bellhalla (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
      - comment yeah it does sound like a WP:BLP1E except they arent living, but the principle is the same in that they are notable as a group from this one event and as such they should be covered within that context. Using the same BPL1E reasoning one comes to conclusion that merge is the only alternative. Which when applying Coverage in Reliable sources may at times be extensive and may expand upon the person's background, but information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy which is the case for this list, where the article has a summary list of survivors only Gnan garra 14:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Honour rolls and the like are routinely deleted and removed from articles as not being encyclopedic and this is a long-standing convention. A list of all the fatalities resulting from the September 11 terrorist attacks was recently deleted on these grounds. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP if the Titanic can merit a separate article on survivors and perished, then the Gothenburg can too. There has been much discussion of the issue on the Gothenburg's talk page, and it was agreed to split the list into a daughter article. Now that has been done, the one person who was against its inclusion at all seem to be trying to get it deleted again. Note that the naming of roads after the victims was the reason that the SS Gothenburg article was nominated for DYK.Mjroots (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should not be a reason to keep this list. Also, the information has not been deleted before as far as I am aware (or if it was, I had nothing whatsoever to do with it), so I am not trying to "get it deleted again". Please assume good faith. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  - for the record this diff from the prior dicussion. Gnan garra 08:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your final point could be addressed in the main article by saying something along the lines of "Many streets in Coconut Grove and Milner were named for victims of the wreck." and follow with a few examples, especially if any of the streets are major streets. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 withdrawn by Relata refero. utcursch | talk 09:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bharat punarnirman dal

Non-notable organisation, possible vanity. No secondary sources. Relata refero (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to patrolling admins: sources found, nomination withdrawn. Relata refero (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The information given is a valid information and you can cross check with http://bpd.org.in or you can further search the web for the validity of Bharat punarnirman dal Xmayu (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- The standard for including an article in Wikipedia (what we call "notability") isn't that it's true, but that independent, reliable sources have written about it before. Are there any newspaper articles about this political party? cab (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Also look up with Election commission of India website i.e. [ http://eci.gov.in ] under registered political partys. Bharat Punarnirman dal is a registered organization with Election commission of india you will get to know the notability of the organization. regards. Xmayu (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Registering with the Election Commission is not a sign of notability, several hundred defunct organisations are so registered. I can't find any independent sources, and this reads like a vanity article, so that's why its here. Relata refero (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Reliable sources at Google News. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How did I miss that? I must have mis-spelled my search. Bad show. Withdrawing nom. Relata refero (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Defunct partys are the one which do not contest elections. BPD has contested the Uttar Pradesh

Vidhan Sabha elections in April 2007. Surely you will find data on that. Anways i will try to add news articles on the web in reference and external links section. 08:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. He may be notable in the future, but he does not appear to be there yet.--Kubigula (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Sebastian

Article lacks reliable sources so is unverifiable. Appears to be self-promotion. Appears not to meet WP:BAND unless proper sources can be given for the "national tour" that show this amounts to a major national tour. Gwernol 17:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont know how too discuss on here because I am new too wikipedia, but Im not sure why you want too delete the page I just made. Chris is a singer in Australia, I noticed he didnt have a wikipedia so I thought I'd make one. Hes becoming quite popular here in Australia. So I have no idea why its getting deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisSebastianFans (talk • contribs) 18:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC, the tour was his (notable) brother's for whom he was only the support act. --JD554 (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete he is "working on his debut".... Clearly not notable. --Crusio (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep He is a singer in Australia, I even showed the people hes worked with. I have absolutely no idea why you think its not notable. I have proven too you that he toured with his brother, he did about 30 shows, he was in the paper for them and everything. There is no need to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisSebastianFans (talk • contribs) 03:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Non-admin close. Jfire (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brayer (person)

This article is about someone who claims to be the founder of Wikipedia. I don't think it is true, but if someone can come up with references that can prove this, then please do so. Per WP:MADEUP. Gary King (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete and tagged as such. Nonsense. --Pmedema (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Step hen 22:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Wheel of Fortune puzzle categories

Pure unsourced, original research. The puzzle categories of Wheel of Fortune are not notable, and without sources, can never be verified as being accurately noted. Where are the "original" categories coming from? Retired? Who says? Can it be sourced? Are the WoF puzzle categories being given any significant coverage in any media? Considering its been unreferenced since July, I'm thinking not. Collectonian (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This was spun off from a space-consuming list on the main page about the show, with the goal of reducing the size of the main page. Although I'm the one who moved it and am thus listed as the original author, I didn't create the original list of categories. I think it's relevant information to an article about the show. I'm not sure how to address the sourcing issue except that it can be verified by observation of current and past episodes of the show. JTRH (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, does pure description qualify as original research? JTRH (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. JTRH is quite right: the shows themselves are the sources and a description is not original research. In this respect this is barely different from any of the many TV series episode guides which Wikipedians are so fond of creating. Ros0709 (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an episode list, it is an OR creation synthesized from personal observation with no sourcing for the claims made. A properly done episode list has sourcing, which this doesn't. Please provide episode references where it is explicitly stated that category X is now retired rather than simply rarely used. Please provide episode references for the declaration that a category is an "original" one, for the first use of every category, that a category is still active, and for the Really Long Title one. Collectonian (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - there are really easy references for it: the episodes themselves. Obviously, it's a terrible bother to go citing individual Wheel of Fortunes episodes for categories, but it's doable if we want to get perfectly technical about it. matt91486 (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, citations are required. The factual information has been questioned, so the onus is now on those claiming the list is accurate to provide verification for it. Collectonian (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

When did I say citations weren't required? I said that citations can be gotten from a very obvious source. This should be tagged with needing sources, not deleted for it. We know what the sources are, they're just difficult to properly mark down. matt91486 (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As I noted in my original statements, it has been tagged for needing sources since July 2007. None have been added, given the implication that there are none. Either way, the referencing isn't the only problem. There is also the issue of notability. There is nothing notable about the categories and this is just a list of trivia and fancruft. Collectonian (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, I created the page but I'm not the original author of the material. I certainly don't have time to watch several hundred episodes of the show to determine original and final air dates for various categories, if that's a serious request on your part. I maintain my position that this is a simple descriptive list which complements the main show article, but I'm not going to argue the point further. JTRH (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with JTRH. And if you really believe that just because no one happens to have done the work to source it, that means there aren't any, then you have a lot more faith in the tenacity of Wikipedia editors than I do. I know I personally wouldn't go through the articles needing sources category and happen to pick out one that required watching dozens of hours of Wheel of Fortune to properly source. Just because no one's done it, even in a period of 9 months, doesn't mean it can't be done. It just means it's not easy to do. matt91486 (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep As a regular Wheel watcher, I can agree with JTRH and Matt91486 that this page is not beyond hope. Just because nobody's tried to source it in 9 months doesn't mean it's not notable; in fact, that smacks of WP:NOEFFORT. While it may not be easy to source this list to various eps, it certainly wouldn't be impossible by any means. The categories are a very important part of Wheel; I'm sure there are some sources out there somewhere regarding them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I added a few references from the Wheel of Fortune Timeline. These aren't the best references out there, but they're at least a start. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

None of you have yet to address the more important issue...notability. Are the categories notable per WP:N? Do they receive extensive "real-world" coverage outside of the game itself and discussions by fans? Have academic works or even third-party newspapers or other reliable sources discussed the topic and specific categories? Collectonian (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you find this less objectionable if it were contained within the main show article? It's a simple description of a feature of the show. I doubt very seriously that anyone's ever written an academic journal article (or even a newspaper article) on Wheel of Fortune puzzle categories; that doesn't mean that this description doesn't add relevant information to the main article, of which it's intended as an adjunct. JTRH (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If it were in the main article, I would feel that it was cruft that should be cut. It simply isn't necessary to give such detailed description, nor does it add any truly relevant information.Collectonian (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep the information in this articles does not have to be notable, it's obviously a sub-article of Wheel of Fortune (US game show) (and merging this into that very long article would make it even longer). The show is the source for the article. --Pixelface (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep As a subarticle of Wheel of Fortune (US game show), it falls under different notability guidelines (specifically, none). The lack of citations is a reason for cleanup, not delete, when the sources so obviously exist. As such, there is no valid rationale for deletion. -- Masterzora (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep I commented above, but didn't actually vote. JTRH (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge into Wheel of Fortune (US game show) - no particular reason for a spin-off article. - fchd (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'd just like to point out that this isn't a separate article; it's a subarticle. Specifically, the main article is long enough that certain less essential pieces (like this) are better off in a subarticle to reduce clutter on the main page. Standards for a subarticle are (and should be) different from standards from full articles. -- Masterzora (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  - No, this article has to be able to stand or fall on its own merits. Notability for the list of puzzle categories must be verifiable. If the main article is too long, and there is a need to "reduce clutter", it's generally a sign that stuff needs to be pruned, rather than shifted elsewhere. - fchd (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
When is this AfD supposed to close? JTRH (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Subarticles have to be about a notable subtopic, else it makes no sense to turn it into a subarticle. If the subtopic is too long for the main article, but isn't notable enough to support a separate article, trim, don't spinoff. There is no reason to exclude subarticles from our notability guidelines. In this case, if the puzzle categories themselves are not the subject of reliable, independent sources (and there is no evidence in the article or this AFD that they are), then this article should be deleted, no matter how important WoF is, or how long the main article is. Fram (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Has been Deleted per WP:CSD#A7. Chetblong^{T C} 03:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shaw History

Does not appear to be notable per WP:ORG. Has appear to have done several notable things, but they are difficult to find references for. Please list them if you can find some. Gary King (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete + salt - doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable for inclusion. Addhoc (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete and Salt - Should have been deleted per A7 (and has been, and re-created); author and IPs keep removing deletion notices, including this AfD. Dethme0w (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I've speedied this twice, so salting is a good idea. Addhoc (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Save the clock tower! Save the clock tower." Except this one is, about saving a local cemetery. "Here's a quarter lady." Delete and salt, as stated above. Mandsford (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: add related article. Wettershaw Manor is connected with this, including being edited by same the anon editor. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 22:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: added AFD tag to Wettershaw Manor. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Wettershaw Manor is supported by an article from the Columbia Missourian and may prove to be notable. I would recommend a separate AfD for that article. --Eastmain (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Comment - that source is pretty thin gruel and seems to be a promotional piece that depends on what the author was told by the owner. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete and Salt. Probably the same editor that created the similarly unencyclopedic Two-Mile Prairie and The History of Shaw. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. If a community group was able to force the Missouri state government to change the routing of a proposed highway, it probably got written about enough by reliable and independent sources to prove its notability. --Eastmain (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete both - the content fails WP:V and needs much better sourcing to survive. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Note. See WP:ANI#elaborate scam.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deletion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nougatocity

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, per WP:DICT. Gary King (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. and WP:MADEUP JohnCD (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom as well. I agree also with the opinion that it is WP:MADEUP --Pmedema (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete as a copyvio of http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nougatocity (now tagged). db-nonsense would probably also apply. Plus, agree with WP:DICT. Ros0709 (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep as a perfectly good stub, and the main article is too large. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wheel of Fortune (The wheel's configuration)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Wheel of Fortune (The wheel's configuration)

Pure, unsourced fancruft. The configuration of the wheel on Wheel of Fortune is not notable, and seems to be pure OR. Not needed in the main article, nor here. Collectonian (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

delete This article does appear to be unsourced. Even if it were sourced, I would question the need for an article showing the configuration of the wheel. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm the author of the page. It was created to replace a bulky, space-consuming table on the main page about the show. It's a useful adjunct to the main page because it illustrates a relevant point of interest. And there's an extensive discussion of the sourcing on the article's talk page. JTRH (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll buy a E, and take a K, and then a P - it's a critical part of the game - and it's not original research since you can cite the SHOW ITSELF for references. ViperSnake151 18:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Collectonian (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
W_ak k__p. I'm not entirely certain that this could be sourced all that well (unless Brad ever finishes his WoF timeline), but the Wheel is a very important part of the show. Although I'm not 100% positive that it could be, I'm sure that a few sources could be dug up to verify the info here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be an important part of the show, but is it notable enough to have its own article? Again, are there third-party, reliable sources that discuss the wheel itself in-depth? Or will this article never be anything more than an unnecessary table? What information is does this add that is not already adequately covered by the main article's description and picture of the wheel?Collectonian (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've responded above to the sourcing issue; a previous editor raised similar concerns, and I answered them to his satisfaction on the article's talk page. It's a simple description based on verifiable observation of the show. There's no WP:OR involved. I've also stated above my reasons why the separate article was spun off from the main show page. Several of the images on the show page have been challenged under fair use, and if the picture of the wheel is removed, this is the only available way to convey its appearance. The main article describes the wheel, but this table elaborates on that in a way that I think adds relevant content. JTRH (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You must mean you want us to use a "copyrighted picture (image) of the wheel which was taken from the show itself. I doubt that would meet GFDL requirements. No. I think a table will do great and will do good if anyone wants or needs to republish. --CyclePat (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak Delete I agree with Collectonian-- the picture of the wheel is worth about 1,000 words more than this "24 lines of fortune" representation. What's "verifiable observation"? Kind of like original research, except we can tune in at 7:00 tonight to verify it? Mandsford (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Verifiable observation = the source of the information is watching the show, which anyone can do to verify it, and this is simple description. Please see the article's talk page for my argument as to why that doesn't constitute OR. And again, the picture of the wheel has been challenged as non-fair-use. JTRH (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep As a subarticle, its notability is not a valid rationale for deletion. The sourcing obviously exists in the show. Sure, the article could use citation but that's reason for cleanup not deletion. -- Masterzora (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep I commented above, but didn't actually vote. JTRH (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Keep but merge and move. This is really the type of content that belongs on a fanpage for the show, ~~not in a place like Wikipedia.~~But, I made a few edits to try to clean up what was already here to make it presentable, ~~but truthfully I just don't think this should even be here in the first place.~~ DJBullfish 18:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this page may be worth inclusion, but not as a seperate article. Merge this, stuff like the set, theme music, and other stuff into one big subpage. Preferably without a glut of unfree images, particularly ones taken from other sites. DJBullfish 18:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge Not OR, but not enough to consitute a separate article. Either shrink the table, tone down the colors, and put it in the main Wheel Of Fortune article, or get a screenshot of the wheel, write up a fair-use rationale, and put that in the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'd just like to point out that this isn't a separate article; it's a subarticle. Specifically, the main article is long enough that certain less essential pieces (like this) are better off in a subarticle to reduce clutter on the main page. Standards for a subarticle are (and should be) different from standards from full articles. -- Masterzora (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment I've created a variation of this table which conveys the same information in about 15% of the space. It's on my user page; please look it over if you'd like. It can easily fit onto the main article page (which has been significantly edited down since yesterday). I'm amenable to adding the new table to the main page and deleting the sub-page. I guess that constitutes a merge. I'll let the AfD process run its allotted time, but if there are no objections to this suggestion, that's how I'd like to proceed. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Comment The vertical design of the above would make the information substantially more difficult to read, in my opinion. It saves space, but pays a huge price in readability in return.
      - Point taken. The original diagram on the sub-page was vertically oriented, and then changed for readability. However, if the sub-page is closing down and this diagram is going on the main page, then space is at a premium. I enlarged the font so that the numbers are more visible without changing the overall size of the diagram. Also, in its vertical orientation, it more closely approximates a linear rendering of the wheel's actual appearance. JTRH (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP and close this AFD: Seem like a No brainer... let me see Wheel of Fortune, TV show... hummm... Turn the TV... Okay... find the TV guide first here... So let's take the http://ca.tv.yahoo.com/wheel-of-fortune/show/25th-anniversary-sweepstakes/episode/162196 25th Anniversary Sweepstakes, Season 34, Episode 121] which appears to air tomorow. Tape it and whach the wheel spin... then indicate that the information was taken from the episode. (ex.: Episode 121, Wheel of Fortune, Publish by A Chanel, Rogers Cables, Chanel 6, Original air time, 8h00 p.m. February 25 2008, accessed February 25 2008.)... Seems like a reasonable source to me... As they say "right from the horses mouth" :P And tell the person that can't find sources for this article to read WP:DICK. --CyclePat (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, so it doesn't clutter the main article. That is why we have {{Template:Seealso}}. Also, this looks like a close per WP:SNOW. MrPrada (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
When is the AfD supposed to close? JTRH (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, not the topic of reliable independent sources. Yes, we can see it in the show. Should we have an article on the cloting of the presenters and the candidates? We can see those too. This is in itself not a notable topic, as evidenced by the lack of secondary sources, and should not have a separate article. Fram (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

comment: What next... you're going to tell me that Canada's Anual Financial Report (or 2008 budget as published on their website here)is not a "reliable independent source." Yup! Whatever... who better to comment on Canada's financial situation? After all, it's from Canada's own government and their own press release... [23]... Wake up dude! Where do you think this information comes from. Seriously... your comment is contradictory is like saying we can't include primary information on wikipedia because it hasn't been reported on by secondary sources. What would you make of a CTV article title B.C. introduces carbon tax in 'green' budget? Or how about a press release from Microsoft saying they "Microsoft Proposes Acquisition of Yahoo! for $31 per Share". Perhaps you could enlighten everyone here. Perhaps we could use a refresher on wiki's policies regarding deletions.... because I no longer have a clue what type of policy we're talking about here that would warant deletion because of these circumstances. --CyclePat (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not said that we can't include primary sources, but indeed, we should not have articles that are solely based on primary sources. From our core policy: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The essential part for this discussion is the "third-party published" part. Further on, it says that self-published sources may be used, as long as "the article is not based primarily on such sources. " So the "type of policy that would warrant deletion" is the good old verifiability policy. Fram (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. It's not necessary to graphically represent the wheel in this way, all that is needed is to describe the various spaces in an adequate manner. I also believe that the article/graphic will become unmaintained and obsolete as the show's producers make changes in the future. PKT (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
STRONG D L T . This is a sourcing nightmare. It's cobbled together by a slo-mo replay of the latest episode. What order the spaces are in is not encyclopedic, rather a brief overview of the relevant spaces is, which the parent article accomplishes. Fan motivation for keeping makes the point all the more clear that it is relevant for a fansite instead.—Twigboy (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep It is a s_ub article, broken out per WP:SIZE just as it should be. The main topic is clearly notable and said article has a length that is reasonable. The only real argument in my opinion is WP:V and a primary source can be just fine for that. 68.40.58.255 (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 03:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chinmay purohit filmography

Non-notable film director per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Since the article doesn't claim that this director is notable, and there isn't a biographical article claiming that he is, this should really qualify for speedy deletion criterion A7. I also note that User:Chinmayppurohit, the creator of this article, may have a conflict of interest. EALacey (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable film director, no reliable sources come up in Google, normally I'd be concerned about not being able to find something transliterated, but I'd think User:Chinmayppurohit would know how best to spell his own name. He isn't on imdb. Corvus cornix_talk 22:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Corvus cornix's results. Doesn't seem to meet notability standards. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as above, I even looked up some of the titles and couldn't find them either. - LA @ 12:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 03:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obamakin

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, per WP:DICT. Gary King (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If Obamakin was a word used by notable sources (eg BBC, CBS, etc, then I would say merge it into the main article, and turn the page into a redirect. However, a Google search has not revealed any notable sources, so I vote delete. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. This is a WP:neologism--Pmedema (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per nom; seems to be a neologism. - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to Obama Republican. Corvus cornix_talk 22:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, this has not even gelled on blogs. A couple of appearances in comment threads isn't sufficient for even just a redirect. See wikt:protologism. --Dhartung | Talk 10:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the spelling "Obamacan" has a lot of google news hits - [24]. We already have a redirect at Obamacan. "Obamakin" is just an alternate spelling. Corvus cornix_talk 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect, this page filled with redirects, to Obamacan. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Obamacan is a redirect. :) Corvus cornix_talk 21:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Stubify and keep (non-admin closure), my issue was more with the various copyvios from primary sources than the notability of the subject. I feel the article is fine now, so I retract. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 02:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medical School for International Health

School with no assertion of notability. All the content is a direct copy and paste from a primary source. The ones I could quickly find are, here, here. I'd bet the rest of the content is a copy and paste too. There is no clean version to revert to. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 16:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Stubify and start over. Legitimate higher ed institutions are inherently notable per editor consensus. If this isn't going to be speedied per G12/copyvio, it is also notable by 3rd-party coverage (and occasional controversy). • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I agree and done. TerriersFan (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: This entry was modified slightly to reflect facts about the school relevant to prospective student. It was modified without inflamatory language (though many would say it would have been justified). When this material was added, the entry was immediately truncated to 5 lines - in order to avoid a more objective entry than the admin would like. I beleive the entry should remain with both positives and negatives, and that the people responsible for trunkating it should be banned from modifying it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.59.101 (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked over your edits to the page, which lead me to seeing the copyright violation. Though I won't assume those who removed your contributions intentions, there are some issue with them. Primarily, Wikipedia is not a guide for helping prospective students. Additionally your contributions appear to be original research/unverified which are core content guidelines. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 23:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Just taking a quick scan of the article history. Seems to be substantial removal of material prior to nomination for AfD. Earlier versions of article may be better starting point to try and fix this? This school is likely notable and you have to ask yourself can this subject become a stand alone article? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an AfD is also useful. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just created a shortcut for that. Now WP:BEFORE should work just fine. Sting au Buzz Me... 00:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked over every edit to that page before nominating. Before this edit by 84.109.59.101 (talk · contribs) (the IP with the above comment) all but a few sentences weren't copy and pasted from a primary source, which is a copyvio and non neutral. Then that IP reverted back and forth between a few IPs that removed most of the article. Eventually one of them kept replacing the page with some stuff from a pdf by one of the school's affiliates. I believe as the article is now just contains the additions by 84.109.59.101, which as I stated above contains issues. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 00:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - the AfD'd page contained material added by IP 84.109.59.101 as he says above "modified slightly to reflect facts about the school relevant to prospective student". Whether this is negative or realistic material is a matter of judgement and opinion. I have reverted to the earlier, clean version since the additions are, in any case, unsourced. Tertiary institutions have long been accepted as notable. TerriersFan (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First SHOOFtv Competition

Does not appear to be a notable article. It does appear to be a competition, but coming up with a third-party reliable source is difficult. Per WP:N. Gary King (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as a NN competition. Dome a dozen. Bearian (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete No notability, and not even a claim of notability asserted. Dgf32 (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nothing wrong with it being outside the English-speaking world, bit fails nearly every policy known to Wikipedia, notably WP:V. Black Kite 23:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SHOOF Troops

Does not appear to be an existing competition, or at the very least, the apparent creator of the competition does not have any mention of this on their website. It appears to be an Arabic competition, though, and if someone can find a reference for this, then please add it. Per WP:N. Gary King (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - holds a minor competition in a tiny country, outside the English-speaking world. This is en.wikipedia.org. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with the delete in general, it is irrelevant if this competition is in an English speaking country or not. "en.wikipedia.org" means that the articles have to be in English, not that the articles are selected for the interest of English language readers, or that English language subjects have other inclusion standards than non English language subjects. Fram (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deletion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jongtology

Does not appear to be a real religion. The only mention of this religion is the Wikipedia article itself. Per WP:N. Gary King (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - likely hoax. No sources given or easily discoverable. JohnCD (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete as patent nonsense.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jocelyne Couture-Nowak

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak	Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (4th nomination)	Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (5th nomination)
Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (6th nomination)	Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (Feb. 19, 2008 nomination)	Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (second nomination)
Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak (third nomination)

Person only notable for being a victim of the Virginia Tech Massacre Rooot (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Close / Keep - The last AfD that was closed just over two months ago was decidedly and overwhelmingly "Keep." This nom is in violation of both WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT, not to mention WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. There has not been any major change in policies or guidelines since the last AfD.

For those that need reminding of why this has been kept, here's a sample from the 5th Afd - The person has been the primary subject of multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, the core criterion of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. The multiple published works are about her, her life and accomplishments and what she meant to the people she knew and grew up with. WP:NOT#NEWS doens't apply and states very clearly it's intended for people how have "been in the news for a brief period". That one event she unfortunately became notable for is extremely "historic" and being the only Canadian in the massacre sadly placed her in Canadian history, far beyond the scope of WP:NOT#NEWS' "a brief appearance in the news." The coverage has been lasting and substantial. Even WP:NOT#NEWS states: "News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial." The sources are VERY substantial in this case. Even in the last couple of months, over seven months after her death, there has been two more published works that are specifically about this person and not the shootings. [25][26] [27], latter being 10 months after her death. There's too much topic-specific content here to be redirected to the already long List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. --Oakshade (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

December 5, 2007 was hardly less than a month ago. The above comment just goes to show the emotion that is involved with these obituary articles. Notability has not been established. There has been no secondary reference to her aside from obituaries. In sum, this is just another obituary - not appropriate for Wikipedia. Rooot (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention this article has also been approved for deletion. The last nomination was dominated by the above person, thus it cannot be said to really be a consensus. It is appropriate to re-open this debate. Rooot (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Being the subject of secondary independent sources is the core definition of notability per WP:BIO. The AfD you linked to was the very first inappropriately closed AfD in April of 2007 that was immediately overturned and relisted. The four subsequent AfDs were closed as "No Consensus" (all challenged and upheld in DRV) and the last AfD was closed as "KEEP". Ironically, that last AfD was nominated for the sole purpose of finding consensus which was decided upon as "Keep". And the last AfD was "dominated" by one person so it wasn't a consensus? I've seen strange arguments to discredit consensus before, but that one takes the case. There were over 23 editors participating in that debate (my own comments were a very small minority of all posts made). The idea that I managed to "dominate" at least 23 independent editors is amusing to say the least.--Oakshade (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet she is not the subject of a single secondary independent source that is not an obituary. Not one. Every single source listed on the article was published after her death. Rooot (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems you didn't know this, but many people become more notable after their death, as this person has.

December 5, 2007 was not less than two months ago either, keep trying. Rooot (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The last AfD that was closed as "Keep" you're referring to was closed on December 14, just over two months ago (I changed the opening comment from "just under" to "just over"). But I'm glad you corrected that because I forgot to mention that AfD lasted 9 days, more than the standard 5 days, and it still was overwhelmingly "Keep". --Oakshade (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"It seems you didn't know this, but many people become more notable after their death, as this person has."

Which is the entire point of this nomination. She is only notable because she is a victim of the Virginia Tech Massacre, as per EVERY SINGLE SOURCE on the article. Rooot (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, she co-founded the first Francophone school in Nova Scotia. And yes, a person can be notable even because of their death, as per EVERY SINGLE SOURCE. --Oakshade (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

FALSE None of the cited sources state this. She did found the first Francophone school in Truro, but not the entirety of Nova Scotia. We need the opinions of those who are not prone to exaggeration to push their POVs. Rooot (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You've missed the point. Per every single source, she's the subject of independent secondary sources, either because of her death or because of the school co-founding.--Oakshade (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, she is not the subject of a single independent secondary source because of the school co-founding. She is the subject because of her death. I can give you 600 sources that have small obituaries for every single victim of the Virginia Tech Massacre but that does not make them notable. This article does not meet WP:BIO criteria. All you have is trivial coverage by secondary sources. Rooot (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Trivial" coverage as defined by WP:BIO is that of "passing mentions" or "directory listings." Being the subject (and in this case, the primary subject) of multiple secondary sources is the core definition of WP:BIO or WP:N. There's no "because of death" exclusionary clause in either guideline. Just by you tying "she doesn't pass WP:BIO" doesn't change the fact she does.--Oakshade (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again you exaggerate the definition to fit your POV. "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail." Every one of the sources that the article relies on is an obituary. An obituary is: "a notice of the death of a person, often with a biographical sketch, as in a newspaper." or "A published notice of a death, sometimes with a brief biography of the deceased." (Both from dictionary.com) The sources that this article is based on are nothing more than passing mentions of her life, in the context of her death. The fact that a person has an obituary published in a newspaper does not make that person noteworthy. Otherwise nearly EVERYONE would be notable as nearly everyone has an obituary published about them when they die. Rooot (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Quoting those definitions is actually confirming the non-triviality of the secondary sources written about this person. Most are far beyond the scope of "passing mention" or "A published notice of a death, sometimes with a brief biography of the deceased." Most are about here life, work, family and what she meant to her students and community, all independent of the shootings. Your comment "The fact that a person has an obituary published in a newspaper does not make that person noteworthy" is non-sensical. This person doesn't have an article because "a newspaper" published an obituary about her, but this person was the primary subject of multiple pieces from many sources in two languages in two countries, not to mention spoken about in Parliament by the Canadian Prime Minister. It's those stories that make this person stand out from everyone. That is why WP:BIO was created, so everyone doesn't qualify for article inclusion. --Oakshade (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The result of the Fifth Nomination on December 14, 2007 was keep, not a lack of consensus. If nom feels that this result was in error, given the discussion in that nomination, the appropriate response should be to take it up at Deletion review, not to renominate the AfD two months and five days later. There is a memorial scholarship at a major university named after this person, and another in a Canadian university; this sounds like ongoing importance, to me. But in the end, I believe this AfD should be closed for procedural reasons. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 17:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no source stating that there is a memorial scholarship in her name. Rooot (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The source for that one point was originally there, but you came along and just removed it [28]. I've since restored it.--Oakshade (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because it was not credible. I have since replaced it with a credible, verifiable source. Rooot (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

weak keep I see no reason why the consensus should have changed since previously. Unlike most of the other victims articles she appears to be have become notable in her death. Indeed, she almost met notability criteria prior to that. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
comment for Rooot and Oakshade. Might I suggest that you will not convince each other, and so do not need to answer each other's points in the AfD? RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 19:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per memorialising at WP:NOT & the criteria @ WP:N. Iow, I agree with Rooot. Eusebeus (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#MEMORIAL (which I'm assuming you're referring to) refers to those who are not the subject of multiple secondary published works by reliable sources as this person is. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is to prevent somebody's beloved grandpa from having an article.--Oakshade (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's let others have their say before you hijack this nomination by domination too. The "multiple secondary published works" that you are talking about are obituaries anyway. Rooot (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Guys, let's try to stay civil please. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The Further Reading section is way too big. WP:EL indicates that external links should be kept to a minimum. In fact, most of the links in that section do not contain any additional relevant information, as they are all just more obituaries. I suggest we remove the entire section. Rooot (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to, but that isn't a relevant matter for this discussion. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Per long standing WP:CONSENSUS on the content standing and never having any of it been removed and it's particularly relevant to this discussion as they include the multiple published works about this person that editors can reference to establish their own opinion on notability. It might look like a bad-faith effort to remove any external sources that can establish notability during an AfD, particularly if the content is removed by the actual nominator. --Oakshade (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is bad faith to assume bad faith. The external sources are all just more obituaries. It would be bad faith if I hadn't brought it out for discussion here, but feel free to push your POV with more exaggerations. I'm sure you'll convince someone. Rooot (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Looks fine. Johnfos (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy close/keep. It's obvious from the number and recency of past debates that there's not going to be a concensus to delete on this one, and anyway the article lists plenty of reliable sources about her, the primary criterion for passing WP:BIO. I doubt she would have passed WP:PROF, but WP:BIO trumps that. The reason for a speedy close is that the discussion is already turning sour and heated and unconstructive, as the nominator should have realized would happen. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep. As the subject of multiple independent, nontrivial articles in national newspapers of at least two countries, Couture-Nowak clearly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. This sixth nomination, made so soon after the last "keep" decision, was a really bad idea and is a waste of our time. BRMo (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Notability has been established with multiple reliable and verifiable sources. Nothing has changed since the previous AfDs that ended in Keep. The repeated practice of trying to delete an article after multiple previous AfDs ended with a clear result of Keep spits in the face of consensus. Alansohn (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Close/Keep -- a waste of everyone's time to do this again. A clear WP:POINT -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
speedy keep and warn that further nomination is an attempt to interfere with the functioning of the encyclopedia, and POINT, per David E. The community has spoken quite decisively on this one. No individual has to agree, but all do have to cooperate. DGG (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy keep as borderline disruptive forum-shopping. --Dhartung | Talk 10:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orpha-Nor

Does not appear to be an existing company and fails WP:ORG. If someone can find a reference, possibly in Norwegian, about this company, then please add that. Gary King (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete unable to find evidence that the company exists. If the company does exist, it fails WP:ORG. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 19:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. If the company was founded last year, it's hard to fathom how it could be considered notable already. It looks like spam to me. PKT (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 speedily, per WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability. Second time this subject has been speedied; first was under the name Soledad Lydia Maca-Lacar. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lydia Maca Lacar

Appears to be a made up person (or someone extremely non-notable); I could not find any related to this. Per WP:MADEUP it seems. The only mention is on Wikipedia itself. Gary King (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 03:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Damn Straight

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang. PROD removed by author, who said "I just need a day to get it all together", but has not edited the article for over 10 days. It seems to me just another expression of emphatic agreement, like "Too right!" or "You can say that again!"; I have done some searching, but I can't see any basis for an article which is more than a one-line dicdef. It is already in Wiktionary. JohnCD (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as per nom and also WP:NOT#DICT Bardcom (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Rooot (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Gatoclass (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#DICT. EJF (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete? Damn straight. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NAD.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Damn straight I'm voting Delete. Good faith goes out the window when the author says "I'll improve it" then leaves. JuJube (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
"The term is of Australian origin" Damn unsourced. Delete Mandsford (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

*Strong Keep. JuJube, "good faith goes out the window" when I don't have time to finish what I started? How is this article, if I, or anyone else, takes the time to expand it any different than Shuckin' and jivin'? I was under the impression that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. So why is it neccesarily incumbent that I expand the article in order to prevent it from being deleted? If I take a month to expand the article, does that make the knowledge which would be conveyed in the article less credible than if I expand it in a week? If I work at a slower pace, does that make me a bad faith editor? Personally, I don't think so. I find the comments above somewhat personal and disrespectful. I understand the concerns about the article. I stubbed it, and added the example of Shuckin' and jivin' to the talk page to provide an example of where I want to take this. If someone would like to help me do this, I would appreciate it. However, simply trying to delete a valid contribution to the encyclopedia because the author is too busy to get the research done seems a little extreme. Avayafone (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

FURTHER I see the term as corresponding to other such things found under Category:Vocabulary and usage stubs. I encourage everyone to take a look at this category, because it includes very similar articles to what I wish to create. Avayafone (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The key distinction is well expressed in this sentence from WP:STUB:

A dictionary article is about a word or phrase; an encyclopedia article is about the subject denoted by that word or phrase.

Some of the articles in the stub category you point to pass that test and some don't; in any case What about article X is not a valid defence. We are discussing this article, and I find it hard to see how it could be developed to an encyclopedia article in the sense above. Shuckin' and jivin' is to some extent about the activity, not just about the words. JohnCD (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

After some helpful insight from JohnCD here, and on my talk page, I see how this article is unsuited now. I am dropping my opposition to the deletion of the article. Avayafone (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Wikipedia:DICTIONARY. --Sturm 18:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12 as a copyvio of [29] CIreland (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to make a baby bonnet

Delete per WP:NOT#MANUAL. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. Is there any way to create a search engine for all articles beginning "How to... "? There'd be some false positives, but a lot of WP:NOT#MANUAL violations could be picked up that way. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not pefect, but perhaps this will do[30]. At first glance, a lot of articles in this search sgould definitely be kept though! Fram (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Bojemoi! too darned many false positives in that for it to be useful. Thanks for the experiment, Fram! --Orange Mike | Talk 16:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete copyvio. JuJube (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per JuJube as likely copyvio, having checked CorenSearchBot's flag. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete - if not a G12 copyvio, then it is G11 advertising, given that its contents are entirely from a retail website and includes a link to it - also note that the user is named after the company mentioned. A possible role account. EJF (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- User is now indefinitely blocked. EJF (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a copyright infringement of [31]. CIreland (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clippers Quay London

Delete Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 03:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Fibonaccis

Non notable band under WP:MUSIC. Doing a cover of a notable work does not make you notable. There are no third party sources. There is no notable record label. Delete Undeath (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Featured in All Music Guide. Albums released by Restless Records according to Billboard.com. Catchpole (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide the link to that? Undeath (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep The All Music Guide biography is here. Google News has articles from the 1980s that mention them [32], so the band is notable. Bláthnaid 18:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep I've found that 99% of the time, a recording act that has an AMG bio is indeed notable. This one is no exception; the sources that Blathnaid has found further assert said notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Agree that AMG biography existence correlates very well with WP:MUSIC in practical terms. It should really be checked as part of a band nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 10:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as there are no reliable sources to demonstrate notability. The listing in All Music Guide is a directory, with lower inclusision guidelines than Wikipedia and cannont be classed as a reliable source. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 03:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marcel du Plessis

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Marcel du Plessis

Articles for deletion/Marcel du Plessis (2nd nomination)

Recreation of hoax article. Previously deleted under AfD. Original reasons remain: player verifiably plays for neither Leinster nor Namibia, and is not known as a Rugby player on either the professional or amateur circuit. (And the purported association with Jayne Wisener is pure vanity nonsense).Guliolopez (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as a hoax. Even his first name is not mentioned on the Leinster, UCD, or Namibia teams' websites. I did not see the original article, but this version probably qualifies for speedy deletion under Wikipedia:CSD#G4. Bláthnaid 18:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Same hoax as last time, even claiming he plays for the same teams! - Shudde ^talk 22:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - No reliable resources. --123Pie (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leah Mates

There's no possibility that this article will ever be more than a brief stub. Leah Mates was a subject of a single news story in the United Kingdom when she filed a claim of sexual harassment against the military forces. (See [33], [34]). That might qualify, at most, for a redirect and a short mention in a related article. (We currently have an article on Sexual assault in the U.S. military, but not Sexual assault in the British Armed Forces.) This article is inappropriate according to WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. I just don't see any way to expand the article; Google Books shows no hits, Google Scholar no hits, JSTOR no hits. *** Crotalus *** 15:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Per BLP and notability standards. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 18:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
delete per nom and above concern. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Knight of Fire

Fails WP:MUSIC. No third party sources to back up claims and no record label. The one interview is in a different language, and is therefore not of any use to english wikipedia users. I tried a google search for any sources related to this band, and did not find any notable sources.(only mentions of the wikipedia page and the fan site) Delete Undeath (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete non-notable. Seal Clubber (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. PKT (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:V. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William F. DeVault

An unreferenced, complimentary article on a self-published poet. Fails WP:BIO. While it is possible that some of the quotations contained may have come from "reliable, intellectually independent" source material in which DeVault was the subject, no citations are provided. The creation of 68.233.95.146 (talk · contribs), a single purpose account. Victoriagirl (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep article requires clean-up, not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, unable to find reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 10:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete -- vanity page. --24.215.162.198 (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep - the format is a complete mess, but there are cites that show it passes WP:MUSIC, for example, a tour to several states. Comments: I have never heard of the band. This page needs to be tagged. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boole (band)

Seemingly non-notable band. Creator removed prod without comment or alteration. No sources. tomasz. 14:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, fails decent Google search. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Plenty of third-party coverage illustrated in article. Catchpole (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Per nom & Tony. --Endless Dan 17:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:BAND. The band's furthest travel to a gig appears to be Cleveland. Third-party coverage is meagre at best. PKT (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 request (blanked the page). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] URA!

Delete fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The discussion below indicates a ready availability of reliable sources indicating notability, and relevant changes have been made to the article since the start of this debate. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 04:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elias Khoury (lawyer)

His only claim to notability seems to be his son, and notability isn't inherited. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per A7. Non notable person. Notability is not inherited, and the sources only deal with his son/terrorist activities. Article has been tagged for speedy. Undeath (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment I have removed the speedy tag because I do not believe it appropriate. Speedying is only for articles that one cannot imagine anyone saying "this is an article worth keeping and improving", and I can see someone saying that for this article. I believe it is best to let this discussion take its course. I have no opinion about whether the article should be deleted or kept - just that is cannot be speedied. Jon513 (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment That isn't exactly the WP:CSD criterion (closer to AFD closure states), but I agree this is not a speedy candidate -- because it has an assertion of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 10:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Assertions of notability are backed by reliable sources in Google News Archive such as Reuters and WaPo. I suspect there are more sources in Hebrew and Arabic for a lawyer who once represented Yasser Arafat. --Dhartung | Talk 10:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Dhartung. There are ample reliable sources that specifically mention the lawyer's prominence. References to his cases before the Supreme Court of Israel are also available online. gidonb (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The article needs substantial improvement, but reliable sources assert the subject's notability. Majoreditor (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment I have improved the article. More improvements are welcome. gidonb (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, tagging for rewrite per Dhartung. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Army Battle Command System

Full of buzzword and properly formatted, but reads just like commercial spam nonetheless and lacks a proper, neutral assertion of notability. Circeus (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable description of this government program, if a little terse. It's a US Army Program of Record, so it's obviously not commercial spam. Anyone going into a C2 situation with the US Army is going to have to deal with this software, so it's at least as notable as any of the "sexier" but obscure tanks, ships, guns, or rockets that have pages on Wikipedia. I agree it could use some cleanup and additional descriptions of its components, however. --Sam (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep but tag for rewrite as it's an awful regurgitation of some brochure or whatnot. Probably public domain, though, so not a copyvio. This is a pretty key 21st century army program. --Dhartung | Talk 10:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

- I don't mind a speedy close, but reading the article directly, you would be hard-pressed to know that. Circeus (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

- "KEEP" This is actually a good, succinct description of real, current programs, some of which I've worked on and/or with as an Army officer and as a defense contractor engineer. What's needed are additional articles on some of the component systems mentioned.Chasritt (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Floral Park Police Department

Non-notable vanity page per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies); existence is not cause for a WP article. • Freechild'sup? 13:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CORP, Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. Travellingcari (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep Someone should find sources for this. Otherwise, delete it! Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 18:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Note This AfD is about notability though - not just finding citations. • Freechild'sup? 18:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - really marginal; busy PD for a NYC suburb. Bearian (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 03:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Romanov Curse

Original research and synthesis; OMG! A lot of these guys died! is not the basis for an article Orange Mike | Talk 13:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The *See also* section says it all. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We must agree all these untimely deaths are sign of what can be considered a curse. Without checking out the unfortunate events how can we state there is a curse?... It isn't still needed that some authority to say "this is a curse", interpretating data anybody else can interpret.G.-M. C. 14:57, 19 February 2008

Delete, weakly. No, we need not agree to anything. But this contains an in-text reference to one book, but doesn't really source its statements to the book; it says that the book was inspired by the curse. If claims of a "Romanov curse" are in fact widespread, and the phrase is not original research or the new coinage of a single author, more than one reliable source ought to exist to document the belief. If such sources can be added, I would cheerfully change my mind. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

reply to G.-M. "all these untimely deaths are sign of what can be considered a curse" - you don't know much about demography, apparently. These deaths are totally typical for the period in which these people lived. And "interpretating data anybody else can interpret": that's almost a definition of original research, which has no place in Wikipedia! --Orange Mike | Talk 15:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per all of the above. Assassinations of a ruling family are hardly proof of a "curse". Is there also a Bhutto curse? Children had a high mortality rate centuries ago. Does this mean the whole human race is cursed? Clarityfiend (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, actually. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as per nom WP:OR. Bardcom (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom - couldn't have put it better myself. nancy ^(talk) 16:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
delete I actually had heard of this idea before but googling was not able to find anything that was a reliable source. Allow recreation if reliable sources can be provided that already talk about the idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Pretty broad definition for a curse-- the penultimate victim "died after a stroke at age 83". Mandsford (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per everyone. Clearly original research and tries to attribute every death to the 'curse'. Death rates are no significantly different than other period families. Is it snowing yet? Edward321 (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per other comments. However, I respect the amount of time that's been spent researching this. Perhaps keep it stored in your sandbox and recreate it if a decent number of reliable sources can be found. But I agree this seems like a list of unlinked coincidences. PeterSymonds | talk 20:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Hastily Cobbled Together for a Fast Buck Album

Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep - extremely notable performers, but badly needs better sourcing. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep well-known "lost" Monty Python album. A source is included already in the article, but I agree more need to be added. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 14:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Yes, Monty Python is very well known. This is moot. Whether this unreleased album is well-known is also moot.: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable; unreleased albums may not yet be notable without substantial coverage from reliable sources." Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums_and_songs The article actually lists no sources. Two external links are given: one to download it (certainly not a reliable source) and a brief article in a local paper saying it will be released in October...of 2005. That is not, IMO, substantial coverage in reliable sources. If there is such coverage, please feel free to add it to the article. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep This is a quite unusual case of an "unreleased" album that is readily available on the net; I guess one might say 'unofficially released'. It's not what one would call a 'bootleg' album, and I doubt that this happens very often. Given the notability of the group in question, I think that would override other concerns - except that it does need a bit 'beefing up' on the references. SkierRMH (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Passes WP:V, WP:N -- policies. As opposed to WP:MUS which would be a guideline. — Music Maker 5376 21:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Wikipedia:N#Notability_requires_objective_evidence "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines. Note WP:Verifiability: 'If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.'" So where are these reliable, third-party sources?

Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence "Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed". Let's take a look at all of the sourced info in that article: <cricketschirping>. What's left if we remove all of the edits lacking reliable sources? A blank spot where the article used to be. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - This is already sourced, and was before the AfD. The album exists and is covered by a second party. Since secondary coverage is established, primary sources can be used for some details. I really don't understand why this was nominated instead of being tagged for cleanup. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

[edit] The Exposure Upper Jurassic adjournment on the right coast Kuibyshev of a water basin

Text looks like it has been translated badly using an automated translator. As such, it may represent copyright infringement. This AfD is necessary to decide if the material should be retained. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Some, but not all, of the text strongly resembles the descriptions here. I'm not sure whether the article should actually be considered copyvio or not. That aside, I'm neutral on deletion. Clearly, the article is the result of Russian text being auto-translated, and so is of very poor quality. The topic itself does not seem to be a national park, but rather a regionally protected area (maybe like a US state park?) and I confess that I do not know the precedents for retention of similar topics. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Nor am I, which is why I wanted to bring it to more expert attention - Fritzpoll (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a description of its discovery in the 1930s. Its probably notable under a more sensible name, and can be tagged for attention from Russian speakers. Relata refero (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this is best handled then by referring to other editors. I withdraw the nomination for AfD - Fritzpoll (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - if (as I feel it could be) this is tidied up and given a better name (there has GOT to be a better name!), the current title - which would hardly make a plausible redirect - could well find a good home at WP:DAFT. Grutness...wha? 13:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, the Russian name for the formation seems to translate as "Exposed Upper Jurassic deposits". Unfortunately, my Russian dictionary doesn't stretch to telling me whether Kuibychev is a placename or refers to the block-like shape of the deposits. And the linked article Protected_areas_of_Ulyanovsk_Oblast is no help whatsoever. Grutness...wha? 13:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  - This is Kuybyshev, the Soviet name of the Samara, Russia, a large city on Volga River Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    - The deposits are on the right bank of Kuybyshev Reservoir Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the nomination has been withdrawn, this AfD can now be closed. I have referred the matter to the Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. - 52 Pickup (deal) 15:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adopted Christmas songs

Half of these songs are known to be associated with winter rather than Christmas. Completely WP:OR with no sources to back up assertions. JD554 (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete The lack of sources means this is pure OR. However, if sources could be found then it may well be worth keeping. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak Delete It is somewhat noteworthy that "Jingle Bells", which (as the author notes) make no mention of Christmas, is one of the most popular of Christmas songs. However, this is 100% unsourced; this is the type of thing that was clearly put together from a discussion among friends, one of whom may have suggested that Louis Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World" sounds awfully Christmasy (to me, it evokes the scenes of chaos and murder in Good Morning, Vietnam, which revived the song, but whatever). This probably could be sourced, but you can't just toss out statements like "this is on many Christmas albums" or "this is commonly played during the holidays". Did Frosty the Snowman mention Christmas? I can't recall. Mandsford (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn below. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 04:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Source of the river of Svijaga

Text looks like it has been translated badly using an automated translator. As such, it may represent copyright infringement. This AfD is necessary to decide if the material should be retained. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, for now and re-write. First of all , the nom prodded this for deletion within one minute of its creation [35]. Unless an article is an obvious hoax, blatant advertising or plain trolling, instant deletion attempts are disruptive to the improvement of articles. The nom's copyright charge is speculative and there's no evidence to support it. This looks like a valid geographical topic. It also looks like a translation copy from the Russian Wikipedia article that was created by the same author (I see somebody is trying to speedy delete that article). A bad translation from foreign language Wikipedia article is not a copyright violation. Even a good translation wouldn't be either. I say give a little time for editors to improve the article. --Oakshade (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep and improve - I have edited and sought to improve the grammar, but I do not speak Russian, and cannot translate various plant names. The names of companies need to be transliterated. There may be no English term for some of the plants named. If so, the correct "Latin" botanical name should be used. As a matter of practice, applying PROD or AFD (and worse still an admin deleting) within a few minutes of creation should be forbidden: WP needs more good editors and this practice is not a good way of recruiting them. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I accept these criticisms of the practices I employed here. On reflection, I was over-zealous - it is not much of an excuse, but I was still becoming accustomed to some of the more intricate details of the policies here. I think I am a little more aware of them now, and have developed a better understanding since I nominated this article. I apologise unreservedly for this overzealousness, and my latest recent changes work hopefully reflects my improved understanding. If anyone wants to make any further comments to me about this, please drop a note on my talk page. As with the other articles I nominated by this author, there is no case to answer in AfD, so I withdraw my nomination. - Fritzpoll (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 03:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Communist Party of Aotearoa

Contested prod. No evidence of notability, no reliable independent sources. 1,410 Google hits look somewhat promising, but (among the first 1,000 of those), there are only 58 distinct ones.[36] AMong the 6 Google books hist[37], some are not independent, one cannot be accessed, and one describes it as "a minuscule new party", which is not really promising.[38]. Theer are no hits for this party in Google News[39]. When you couple this lack of reliable sources with their preference to operate clandestinely, there aren't much arguments left wh we should have an article on them. Fram (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. CPA marks an important continuation of the legacy of CPNZ. If it was to be deleted, there would be a void in the history of the NZ left at wikipedia. --Soman (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Are there currently any books about the (recent) history of New Zealand that even mention (let alone discuss at length) the CPA? Do all these books have a "void" by omitting it, or is it, just perhaps, not so important after all? Fram (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as per nom No evidence of notability.Bardcom (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Mentioned as an offshoot; seems quoted in international Maoist circles (though those poor chaps are reduced mainly to geocities websites now). Fascinating links between Communism in NZ and Enver Hoxha exist, and this is part of the story. Relata refero (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep. For political parties google hits is certainly a non reliable way to check notability. Many parties don't have homepages and their documents are not published in the net. Check Posadism for example that the individual documents in the net are so few and usually with non-political content. Still Posadism was an current in trotskyism and Posadas is considered as an important communist leader and his unsuccefull attempt is still important for study.

Secondly, this party is important because its the result of the antirevisionist struggle in New Zealand. This struggle was held worldwidely and in almost countries. This is an important part of the communism history and its certainly under the scope of politics science. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Deleting because the party is miniscule sounds like WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. StAnselm (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And do you have any indication that it actually is notable and noted? It is not like we have tons of references, but I still want to delete it because it is minuscule. The problem is that we have very few references, none of them in depth, and the fact that it is or was a minuscule party increases the chances that more and especially better independent sources wil not be available. Fram (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The length of the article reflects the size of the party and the low number of references. It does no harm. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

To reflect StAnselm above: this is just WP:HARMLESS... Fram (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep I've given a look at the 6 sources in question: at least 3 are valid. And as for "a minuscule new party", what's interesting is that he felt it notable enough to criticize it.--Aldux (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 bio. --Step hen 23:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fabio mastrangelo

Delete fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong userfy. It's obvious this is both an autobiography and a complete Wiki newbie's first contribution. Let him practice Wikipedia editing in his own userspace. JIP | Talk 20:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Do not userfy. Self-promotion is self-promotion whether it be in the article namespace or User namespace. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep. In strictest terms he fails WP:MUSIC, but I don't think those criteria adequately address the notability of orchestra conductors or classical music in general. I think that the international aspects of Signore Mastrangelo's experience and recordings are sufficient to warrant an article. PKT (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Smith (actor)

Unsourced BLP with questionable notability. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC) 12:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep article is in terrible shape, but there's no question this is a well-known actor in Australia. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 14:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. He was apparently a regular on Home and Away (though oddly, he's not mentioned in the article) and is set to star in Power Rangers: Jungle Fury. That's more than enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, per MisterHand. Actor was also nominated for a major TV acting award in Australia. PKT (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Step hen 22:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CampusJ

This article has recently had a PROD removed, so bringing to AfD. Appears to be non-notable as a defunct, short-lived college/univeristy newspaper. Assertions to notability based on Google News Searches, and a brief mention in another Jewish publication. I suggest that this is non-notable and should be deleted Fritzpoll (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Article provides specific claims of notability regarding its campus coverage and its role in uncovering journalistic integrity issues in deal between the New York Times and Columbia University, all accompanied by ample reliable and verifiable sources. The service's duration or possible defunct status are not valid reasons for deletion of an article. Alansohn (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would not call two references "ample". I am not trying to prove non-notability, which is impossible, but I can't see that this article will ever find sources to satisfactorially assert notability per the guidelines. - Fritzpoll (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I must agree that this article should be speedily deleted. It really is so far from notable at this point; if you check the page they're totally defunct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.30.16 (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. "Defunct" or "Possibly defunct" are never valid arguments for deleting an article. Notability does not expire; once notable, always notable. --Eastmain (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The defunct part of the above should, on reflection, not be in the nomination. My point is that I don't see that the sources within the article assert this magazine's notability. The matter of defunct/non-defunct is, as you say, according to WP:N irrelevant. I am simply suggesting that the magazine was never notable enough for inclusion. Hopefully my point is now clearer... :-S -Fritzpoll (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. This article was previously the subject of an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Campusj.--Kubigula (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Notability proved from cited claims in article. Also per [40]. The JPSwirlface (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Account created today. --Nlu (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Please see my userpage if you wish to learn more. I have a lot of past experience as a vandal, but now wish to edit constructively. I chose this article at random from the afd category, and reviewed it as a constructive (and previously uninvolved) editor. If there is a consensus that everyone here is unhappy with this, I will of course retract my vote and desist until I am considered an established user. The JPSwirlface (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    - The closing admin (who will not be me) is authorized to evaluate your vote as however he/she sees fit. --Nlu (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
      - Ok, obviously I'll accept that. I don't want to go making any enemies at this point. The JPSwirlface (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 spam. Interested parties may want to either contribute to a topical article or create one about the company. Tikiwont (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to optimize industrial processes

Originally speedily deleted, remarked a second time and now marked with hangon template. Blatant advertising. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 12:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

delete If article described a generic method of optimisation then it would be valid (wuth a change in topic heading. However, this reads as an advert, and as such has no place on Wikipedia. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Lectonar under WP:CSD#A7 (non-admin closure). EJF (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nirvana FC

Article already exists at logical name of Salgaocar Sports Club. Would create a redirect but that would then be a speedy candidate as an implausible typo. Author removed prod without giving reason. JD554 (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw: article has now been edited to a different team. Will now go for A7 speedy as new team is not notable. --JD554 (talk) 12:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Salgaocar Sports Club. Aside from the unlisenced image, the whole Nirvana article is a copy of S.S.C. OZ OO 12:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 kept per WP:SNOW and WP:SK. Only delete vote was nominator. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 10:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your Black Muslim Bakery

This article (Your Black Muslim Bakery)is not notable. It is about a small local business which was involved in some local news coverage. The business doesn't even exist anymore. No one will remember it exists in a years time. I hardly remember it now! Violates WP:NOTNEWS and doesn't meet WP:NOTABLE. Just because it had a lot of crimes in it, does not mean we need an article for every bakery, shop, or restaurant in every high crime urban area.Boomgaylove (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

delete-per aboveBoomgaylove (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Snowball (and speedy) keep - strange nomination, probably thousands of local and national news sources, has been persistently in the news and at the center of the community for decades. Wikidemo (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep notability is well-established, and article is well-sourced. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 14:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - seems notable based on the documented history. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
weak keep - I'm somewhat torn on this one. As Wikidemo says, requester Boomgaylove is obviously trying to make the topic sound as insignificant as possible by saying "small local business which was involved in some local news coverage", and also trying to make it sound like if we included this one, we'd have to list "every bakery, shop, or restaurant in every high crime urban area." In reality this particular bakery IS unique and has been on national news multiple times. So ignoring the incorrect commentary by the requester, and the obviously incorrect WP:NOTABLE (which is most obviously met with the General notability guideline), we are left with WP:NOTNEWS - which I actually find myself mostly agreeing with. The tie breaker for me is it's indirect connection to the Nation of Islam series —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 15:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Did a Google News search [41] which shows 304 news stories over very long span of years, including a long story about the bakery in the Oakland Tribune June 16, 1974, which called it the"largest Bay area bakery specializing exclusively in natural food products." It had attained notability by the 1990's due to its commercial prominence as well as the operators' influence in local politics, even without the recent accusations of rape, kidnapping, murder, and torture. Notability is not temporary and in no way ends when a business folds. Substantial coverage (though not main subject) in International Herald Tribune, not a "local" news source [42] , also coverage in today's New York Times [43]. California papers continue steady coverage of the recent crime stories months after they broke. See [44] . Seems more than the typical local interest crime story, or lurid crime which gets a splash of widespread publicity. Satisfies WP:N. My neighborhood bakery tends not to get nationwide coverage for murder, rape, conspiracy, etc. Edison (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. As discussed above the bakery is clearly notable and of national, not merely local, interest. I think Mrand is right to question whether WP:NOTNEWS applies, but I think the ongoing coverage (including mention in today's New York Times!) and connections to other issues such as Nation of Islam gives this topic the required encyclopedicity. While it doesn't affect the AfD process, I have to add that this proposal is so skewed that it is difficult to assume good faith on the part of the proponent. --Srleffler (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
keep The Bakery has been repeatedly in the national news for over 15 years. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply since we aren't talking about a single event but an ongoing series of controversies. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep One of the most controversial businesses in Oakland with all of the problems that went on around it, including the problems with journalists who tried to investigate it and the owner's mayoral bid and the sexual assualt allegations. The notability is easily established. Nate • (chatter) 21:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Hundreds of news stories, spanning decades. --Sapphic (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Concur with most of what the other people said. Dragons flight (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Edison. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 03:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wattle Glen Cricket Club

Non-notable cricket club. Does not meet WP:ORG. The overwhelming majority of players in the club would be amateurs and the cricket is of a social nature. Mattinbgn\^talk 11:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason as above. All clubs play in the same competition and at a similar standard:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 11:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom as un-notable Cricket club. Also the article is so poorly written that after reading the article i still have no idea what country it is in (a small bit of research reveals it to be in Australia). --Greatestrowerever (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete all of these — possibly even Speedy Delete A7. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Might also be worth deleting the template at the bottom of the article too. Twenty Years 13:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Agree with nom - does not meet WP:ORG--VS ^talk 01:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Having just looked at the other 2 (all 3) I agree - delete all as not notable for wikipedia.--VS ^talk 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tax Data Warehouse

I honestly fail to see how Microsoft's internal tax system is encyclopedic. Furthermore, the article is orphaned and has less than 10 edits in its history of well over a year. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 10:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 12:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete due to lack of secondary sources or coverage -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 14:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. PKT (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 04:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of ERP vendors

Delete As per per WP:NOT#INTERNET, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Bardcom (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep/Merge The topic is notable and adequately sourced. It forms part of a set of articles whose root is Enterprise Resource Planning. The content might be rearranged between these but that's merge/redirect not delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't support a Keep/Merge as WP:EL states that links to avoid include those that link to websites that exist intend to promote a website, or exist primarily to sell product or services. Bardcom (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The context for that guideline is Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject.... and so these links are appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The article subject is a List of ERP Vendors - which appears to be a farm of links. None of the links point to an official page of the article subject "List of ERP Vendors". If the subject was "Microsoft", then a link to the official Microsoft page is appropriate, as per your quoted guideline. In this case, I don't see how it is appropriate. For now, let's agree to differ. Bardcom (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The article only has one external link and so it is not a link farm. The links you seem to be talking about are to other articles in Wikipedia and that is normal for a list. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is not a "link farm", I meant it in the context that the article is merely a list of links. Bardcom (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute. You're complaining that a list ... is a list? --Dhartung | Talk 18:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, looking at Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of CEP Vendors, this seems to be a case of WP:POINT. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith on my part. I understand why you felt it appropriate to mention this though, no problem. Bardcom (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please then explain why you argue so furiously in opposite directions in the two cases. "methinks he dost protest too much". Colonel Warden (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you took the trouble to read the previous argument, you will clearly see that I conceded the argument. Hmmm .... And I'm not trying to argue 'furiously' - I must take a close look at my style because you're not the first (or second) person to say this to me, and I'm taking it constructively. Rather than being aggressive, I'm merely trying to be responsive. I hope all my points are clear and precise... But one point you should take away from the previous argument, I don't stubbornly and stupidly hold to a single point of view in the face of arguments that are well made. I read every comment and either respond, or adjust my reasoning accordingly. Bardcom (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I am reminded of The Argument Sketch. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. Note also that the parent article on enterprise resource planning is a largely unreferenced, vague, abstract, evasive, and dodgy, buzzword-laden article defining a hard to pin down, broad category of non-consumer business software. There is apparently some market for publications in the style, unfortunately: but the entire business seems to me to be an attempt to publicize a newly minted three letter acronym for commercial gain. Given the dubious nature of the parent article, we do not need an article linking to vendors who market products using this wannabe buzzword. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A search on Google Scholar produces about 28500 hits which makes this topic more notable to scholars than habeas corpus, say. (I picked a legal buzzword for comparison as your user page says that you are a lawyer). Colonel Warden (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This AfD is about the List of ERP Vendors page only. Bardcom (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

True enough. The parent article is still the sort of thing that needs to be regularly policed for spam, and probably to be rewritten in plain English. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God. I had to take a class in college titled "Enterprise Resource Planning." I think this is the biggest indictment I've ever seen of Wikipedia. An ERP usually makes up MOST OF THE INFORMATION SYSTEMS IN AN ENTIRE COMPANY. By "information system," I mean software you use in a company. Enterprise denotes the whole company, whether it's Home Depot or Wal-Mart. These things usually cost tens of thousands of dollars to buy. CEOs are the ones who give the OK for this kind of stuff. CEOs often have several meetings a month over how the implemenation of an ERP system is going. It takes years to install. Actually--on second thought, go ahead and delete it. Maybe when I'm in a better mood, I'll just laugh about it, instead of be so bewildered.--Bluesages222222 (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As has been pointed out several times, the only article actually up for deletion is the list of vendors. The list of vendors would appear to me to be also redundant to List of ERP software packages; if this is kept, I would suggest merging the two.
But if the root concept is so important, as it might be, it deserves an article in plain English, with fewer buzzwords and evasive abstractions. The root article contains multiple issues apart from vagueness; it routinely addresses the reader as "you" in violation of the Manual of Style's usage recommendations, and contains what appears to be how-to guide materials as well. If the subject is truly importance, it deserves a well written article, not voluminous and vacuous piffling about the Integration of Processes and Systems. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This AfD is only about the List of ERP Vendors page only. It is not about ERP in general, despite some of the comments here. If necessary, that can be a different debate at a different time. Bardcom (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. This isn't just some random collection of external spam links, this is a list of notable vendors of a key corporate-level software product (even if most consumers don't know what the heck it is and can only see buzzwords). These people are not expected to have heard of it or know what it is, but it is a multi-billion dollar annual market. It's detailed in sortable tables, for pete's sake -- way better than the average bear. Sure, could use a few more sources, maybe some language tweaks, but definitely a notable topic presented in a useful way. --Dhartung | Talk 10:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It was never stated to be a "random collection of external spam links". It would be better if you specifically addressed the issues raised here: namely the article goes against WP:NOT#INTERNET and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Bardcom (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment There is no indication this is a "guide to the internet" or a "repository of external links". This is an article listing notable companies, not websites, and there are no external links in the article at all. Would you care to explain, first, how those two guidelines apply, before insisting that I rebut your claim that they do? --Dhartung | Talk 11:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. This article does in no way violate the rules presented here. WP:NOT#INTERNET clearly states that the content it forbids are text books, guides and annotated text. This article mainly presents the user with an overview of the market size of the ERP software segment. This is statical information, which is in no way a guide, and in no way meant to teach the user about a subject. Its factual information.

Please re-read WP:NOT#INTERNET. It doesn't state anything of the sort. Bardcom (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Second, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY is also in no way violated as far as i am concerned. The article is not a mere collection of links, but instead presents an overview of the ERP solutions available on the market. I agree that the information in this article could use some restructuring and extending, but the shape of the article is not bad enough to warrant any form of deletion. There are more pages that fit into the category this article falls in, and those prove that this kind of article is perfectly usable. Personally i would like to refer you to two quality articles that are in a lot of ways similar to this one.

Articles:
List of Revision control software
Comparison of Revision control software

Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 16:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's in clear violation of WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. It's a vaccuous article that exists only to promote vendors of ERP software. It's exactly the sort of article that is specifically mentioned as not being suitable Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. There is zero encyclopedic value. Bardcom (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Other articles are not relevant to this discussion as per WP:ALLORNOTHING Bardcom (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The WP:ALLORNOTHING rule is created to prevent discussions that can be summed up as "You did that!", "So? They did that to!". In this case the All Or Nothing rule is not applicable, simply because i am not referring to the other articles in order to give this article a KEEP because both articles would be wrong. Im merely pointing to it to show that with some work, this article can be a quality article just like those two are. in this case, i would like to mention the Wikipedia:INSPECTOR essay.
Second, i don't agree that there is no encyclopedic value in this article, nor do i agree this is simple promotion. This article provides data on the market size and total revenue of a company, as well as providing a list of the available ERP vendors, all of which is valid information for an encyclopedia. I agree that at this time it could fall under the repository ruling, but this is NOT a mere useless list. More tables columns data could be included to create an overview of the different available ERP vendors which are all notable. Again This article needs work, but is by NO means NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC. If you think it is not encyclopediac, please show me a rule that will support your point of view that the data in this article is no good. And with this i dont mean WP:NOT#REPOSITORY as that rule mainly governs the way information is presented in. --Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. For the record, I've been one of the main editors of the list for a while.
The guidelines cited by User:Bardcom seem to be misguided, I fail to see how they are relevant.
WP:NOT#INTERNET talks about web sites, which this list is not about, it's about companies.
WP:NOT#REPOSITORY explicitly allows lists. In the guideline for lists, one of the suggested purposes of a list is Information, where it says The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists. Since List of ERP vendors is sorted by revenue and allows for comparison of international vendors by converting to a common currency (US$), I think it fulfills this criterion. The list also explicitly cites an external source for the major five vendors and relies on the articles for the smaller ones for the revenue figures (assuming they are correctly sourced). Therefore I fail to see how this particular list violates any Wikipedia guideline.
To add some history: The list initially was merely sorted alphabetically and was the target of a lot of spam additions. Since I've converted it to the current format, it hardly ever is spammed again. The mentioned List of ERP software packages on the other hand is a regular spam target, with its alphabetical organization. --S.K. (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi S.K., Wikipedia articles should not read like a guidebook and this article fails WP:NOT#INTERNET because the article exists only to promote the nature of a service offered by the companies mentioned. It fails WP:NOT#REPOSITORY because it is just a list of links. Adding revenue figures doesn't change this, IMHO. It also fails WP:NOT#DIR as the article is also a directory of companies selling ERP software - Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Bardcom (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And in what way does it "Promote" ERP vendors? All it does is listing market share and turnover for the company. I fail to see what kind of promotion this is, especially seeing that about every major vendor is there. Shall we just delete all articles on ERP companies on Wikipedia alltogether, as those are much more of an advertisement then this simply, unbiased list? Im not getting into the presented rules again, as i already said i don't deem them broken. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Useful information of an encyclopedic nature, not an indiscriminate list, and I find the arguments convincing (so I won't repeat them) that "DIR", "INTERNET", and "REPOSITORY" do not address this kind of list. The article does exhibit one limitation of lists, that they must be maintained. It's about a year out of date and ought to be made current. Also, the second table purports to list companies in approximate order of worldwide revenue from ERP application but it neither cites nor even reproduces the data from which the ordering was done. If we're going to hold that one out as a comparison it's best if we can find the entire table from one source rather than obtaining (and citing) the data piecemeal because that introduces some methodological problems of comparing apples to oranges, raising possible WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues. Wikidemo (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No Encyclopedic Value. As stated before, this list is a vacuous article that only exits to promote vendors selling ERP software. You don't state which arguments you find compelling - all of them? Some of them? A vague wave at policies doesn't add to the debate. I've summarized the 3 policies it falls foul of above, and the reasons why, and I've addressed counter-arguments as they've been made. If I were to summarize the debate to date, I'd say that no justification has been made to keep the article and that it certainly fails DIR and REPOSITORY. The argument for INTERNET is less clear since it could be argued that revenues are an achievement - but since the article is so out-of-date anyway, even this argument probably fails. Bardcom (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not going to repeat the arguments. I don't have to. They've already been made. This is a forum for expressing our views. The closing administrator is free to weigh my comments as heavily or as lightly as they wish. You've already made your point, above. You don't have to criticize everyone who dares oppose you. The breadth of my wisdom on policy matters is not up for debate, but rather whether the article should be deleted or not. I think not and from the discussion so far it looks like this AfD nomination will fail. You're entitled to your own opinion, which you have already expounded on at length.Wikidemo (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's not be silly - I think you're getting a little emotional with your response. I didn't criticize you, or anyone else. All I did was point out that most of the arguments to keep this article are vague waves at policy, and I invited you to to expand on your reasons. I'm genuinely interested in understanding the arguments, and I'd prefer to see stuff added to Wikipedia than deleted. Also, I'm not trying to "expound at length", but instead I'm trying to be responsive. It irritates me when I ask questions or make arguments, and then never receive a response. I'm trying to engage in a debate and to be precise, and not vague, about the arguments as I see them. My response to you was intended to be an invitation to put forward a more precise argument. Sure, we might have a difference in opinion, but that's OK too. For example, you state that the list is useful information of an encyclopedic nature - my question is, where is the encyclopedic nature? I've also pointed to precise paragraphs within the policies - other people have not. You may feel that the consensus is leaning towards a keep, but any closing admin will see that so far, the keep argument is as vacuous as the article. Bardcom (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Time for me to drop in here again. As i have earlier pointed out, this article does NOT fail DIR and REPOSITORY guidelines. Repeated arguments why it does file these guidelines are simple rephrases of the points you made earlier, so i am not going into that. Also, this article can be considered encyclopediac. It offers a nice compact article displaying to the market size and distribution of the ERP systems market. Furthermore, it offers links to companies active in this 26+ billion dollar business. I still fail to see why this is " Advertisement". The article is in no way whatsoever promoting a specific ERP vendor, or even the ERP market. There is no argument for this being an " Advertisement" that would either conflict with the rules, or would not be true for each and every company or market related website on wikipedia. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Break We're going round in circles. You keep repeating your arguments, and I've made mine. Although I'm continuing to invite people to actually point out why they don't violate the policies quoted. So far, not one keep editor has argued convincingly and precisely on the original reasons quoted, and most appear to be happy to argue a different point. To me, I find that editors that want to jump to a different argument tells it's own story... Bardcom (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Cut it out. I am not being "silly" or "emotional" for disagreeing with you, nor is my contribution "vacuous" or vague. You're one step away from a civility warning here. I don't see that you're interested in other opinions at all here, you're just shooting them down. The result is an unusually long, nonstandard AfD result that's hard to read and make sense of. Why would a neutral editor want to walk into this? You've had your say, many times. Please let others have theirs. Wikidemo (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

??? I did not call you silly. I have not criticized others. I do not see other contributions as 'daring to oppose me'. I do not like being threatened with a civility warning. I've tried to keep this argument on target and to the point, and I've tried to engage with others' arguments. I am not shooting anything down. Apologies for insinuating you were getting emotional. Bardcom (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

... and please Examine this nomination as a possible WP:POINT violation, in which it should be speedily closed. What is this? It appears from this comment that the nominator is unhappy over the deletion of another almost identical article listing software providers, which he argued strongly against to the point of bringing a deletion review, and is now wasting our time playing devil's advocate by blindly making the identical argument his opponents used in that other article. If so that qualifies as Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Wikidemo (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss on your talk page Bardcom (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

note - we've had a polite chat and I'm satisfied that Bardcom is acting in good faith and not attempting disruption; I still do think this discussion has become quite messy. I know we don't really have prescedent as such in AfD, but it would be a little odd if we have inconsitent results from nearly identical articles. Why are we getting nearly 100% keep results here, when the other article result was a delete? Wikidemo (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the different set of editors involved, note that the sources indicate that CEP is a novel technology which is still struggling to establish itself while ERP is a mature technology which is used by most large corporations. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Note the lack of sources to back up the statement of "struggling to establish itself"? While it is a new (and novel) technology, it is notable - the distinguished analyst firm Gartner have already held a conference last year on CEP, and are planning it to be a regular event. Unlike most new (and novel) technologies that start out being promoted by small start-up firms, the list of credible and well established firms associated with CEP is in itself a weighty factor in it's notability. Rather than struggling, it is more correct to say "swiftly gaining in use, popularity, and status"... Bardcom (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wikidemo, this discussion is a lot quieter now. I'm interested in helping to resolve the situation whereby we end up with inconsistent results for nearly identical articles. Have you any ideas on how to resolve this? My suggestions is to ask some of the admins that were involved in closing the previous article Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of CEP Vendors to look at this article (and perhaps other nearly identical articles too) and to make a general ruling or set of guidelines? My points have been made in this article, and I don't think there are a lot of other arguments that can be made (unless a more experienced editor or admin can make the argument more precise or better...). Bardcom (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Wikidemo, there is no inconsistency as as far as I can tell. The difference to my knowledge is simply, the point I cited above about the purpose of a list. The decision is based on the rules for lists, none of the other cited guidelines have any significance. If the list has a significant added value compared in particular to a category, it can stay. List of CRM vendors was deleted, because it was only an alphabetic list. World's largest software companies exists, because it has additional information besides the names of the companies. I'm not sure, what Bardcoms list contained, but I would guess it was just raw company names, providing only data, not information. --S.K. (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi S.K. Simply not true. The CEP vendors list was remarkably similar to the ERP vendors list - sortable columns, extra information, etc. Offers were made to extend the table with more information, as I mentioned here deleted but the article was still in violation of the same policies as this one. Stepping back, I think we would all benefit from Wikidemo's suggestion to resolve this situation for all articles of this type. I made the suggestion to ask some of the admins involved in the CEP vendor discussion to help resolve this situation, but I haven't done anything about it yet as I was waiting to hear if anybody objected. Nobody has objected so far, so I will ask Hu12 to get involved as he appears to be interested in topics such as these. Bardcom (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bearian (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Josetxo Grieta

delete - nn band. fails wp:music & wp:band. Endless Dan 21:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete No evidence of WP:BAND notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep under WP:MUSIC criterion #6, that is the band includes Mattin, a notable musician in his own right (and there's too much material to merge Josetxo Grieta into Mattin). Bondegezou (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

leaning towards keep based on Bondegezou's rational. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per above and a poor nomination written in jargon. Catchpole (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The 1985

delete - nn band. fails wp:music & wp:band. Endless Dan 21:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep I recall this band as being rather notable in Pittsburgh, and I'm pretty sure they did some national touring with bigger-name groups. Unfortunately, it's difficult to track down sources since they've been inactive for awhile. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 22:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep May meet WP:Music#Criteria for musicians and ensembles 6. "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" with Anthony Paterra as a member of Zombi. dissolve ^talk 04:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep per above. This is a poor nomination written in Wikipedia jargon. Catchpole (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Still doesn't establish any notability. --Endless Dan 17:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Rover Cricket Club

Delete. Non-notable local cricket club. Article written by one of its players (see Nicholas Calvert (cricketer)). Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable club playing in minor league. Johnlp (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alsager Cricket Club

Delete. Non-notable local cricket club Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk10:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:ORG. The article is unreferenced and there is no evidence supplied that the cricket is anything other than generally social and amateur in nature. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. The Alsager top team plays (in 2008) in the fourth division of its ECB-backed league. I think teams at the top level of these leagues could qualify as notable, but this is too far below that. Johnlp (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I'm sure it's a very friendly club and all but not notable all the same. --Roisterer (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 speedily after the author blanked the page (WP:CSD#G7).

[edit] Sawaka kawashima

This person did not apply to criteria as on Wikipedia:Notability (music), lack of resources, also I'm recheck Miss Universe 2002, actually not her, wrote like advertising.

The word "upcoming" in the article did not apply to criteria #5, has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels. --Aleen f1 10:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not worth putting, probably the work of an overzealous fan, as the user name implies. Data is taken from the official site and the MySpace site, which violates WP:EL. Aside from the bio data in those site, nearly all google searches go back to those sites and her participation in TARA2. DELETE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglestorm (talk • contribs) 13:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Blnguyen. Non-admin closure. Icestorm815 • Talk 05:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Calvert (cricketer)

Non-notable cricketer, has failed to play first-class or List A cricket so doesn't meet WP:CRIN Jpeeling (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete, A7. NB Article appears to have been written by the subject. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete as above. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7 - no indication of the subject's significance. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Non-admin closure to help with extraordinary backlog. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

After communication between User:VirtualSteve and myself on our talk pages, I am reversing this decision, and I will merge and redirect to Radio Musicola. This is not an administrative decision, so it can be reverted by any editor with valid cause, but it follows from a careful reading of the relevant notability guideline. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nobody Knows (Nik Kershaw song)

This article is about a single song on an album. The editor has commenced writing articles for each song on the parent album Radio Musicola - which in my opinion is not required as it does not seem to me that the song itself is notable enough of its own accord to warrant an article. Suggest Delete for this article.--VS ^talk 10:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep This is a single released from an album, so it worthy of its own article. If it was just an album track, then I would fully agree with a delete. Although the article really should be expanded much more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.120 (talk)
Keep this was released as a single from the album. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per 132.185.144.120 and Snigbrook. Xihr (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Radio Musicola. The article fails WP:N as unsourced and doesn't meet the notability requirements set at WP:MUSIC#Albums-and_songs. dissolve ^talk 09:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep : As per 132.185.144.120. The song was released as single. Europe22 (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect per answer by dissolve. Being released as a single is not enough to make it notable. --Wolfer68 (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect , per WP:N#Albums and songs PKT (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment keep if a cite can be found that it charted; redirect otherwise. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: Unsourced neologism. Deleted either as patent nonsense, or under snowball clause. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nasty nasty blunt

Proposed for deletion twice, once with a reason of "Complete original research, no claim of notability.", second time "The article is a neologism and lacks general notability"; however, in the meanwhile an unregistered user (probably the same person as the creator) removed the deletion notice. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete No proof of notability. Article is written in a non suitable way for wikipedia (which isn't grounds for deletion) but appears to be a joke (which is). Alberon (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Junk content at it's lowest Beeblbrox (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Unreferenced and probably non-notable slang term. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Scrap it; most of the content of the article (all but the leading paragraph) is unencyclopedic nonsense. Candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable, original research, and general nonsense. Lordjeff06 (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete For all of above notability reasons. Nothing links to page, which I believe reinforces the lack of notability. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete While the article is somewhat humorous, it lacks notibility. Iepeulas (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as utter tripe. Could be a speedy G1.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure to help with extraordinary backlog. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Union of Marxist-Leninist Communists of Belgium

Contested prod. Non notable shortlived organization. The three references are not independent at all (and hardly reliable). No evidence of any notablity has been given or can be found. It existed, but just like "Communist Strugle" (AfD below), it is mentioned in "Maoism in the Developed World", but gets only one line in the "Other belgian Maoist groups" section, indicating that it was (and is) not important at all.[45]. The other two hits at Google books[46] are one self-published, and one by their (larger) counterparts Amada. Fram (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, see answer at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organisation for Marxist Unity - New Zealand‎. This is a frequent problem when dealing with orgs that folded well before WWW, that google-hits are very low. However, I don't see how the sources would not be independent? --Soman (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per my answer below. Relata refero (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Soman. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per my opinion below. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 03:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Communist Struggle (Marxist-Leninist)

Contested prod. Non notable minor political group without reliable indepth sources (one source given is a geocities page). The group existed, but a work like "Maoism in the Developed World" gives it exactly one line, in the section "Other Belgian Maoist groups", indicating that it was not important at all.[47] Searches for the group are difficult since the term "lutte communiste" was quite popular in many circumstances. Fram (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, see answer at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organisation for Marxist Unity - New Zealand‎. --Soman (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per my answer below. Relata refero (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I have heard of the party. Certainly minor but important because it is expression of maoism in Belgium in a certain period. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per the arguments recently used in other similar cases. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. There are good arguments on both sides. I agree that the references are not up to a desirable standard, but they're enough for me to spare the axe. Non-admin closure to help with an extraordinary backlog. (Otherwise, I wouldn't be handling such a controversial case.) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Organisation for Marxist Unity - New Zealand

Contested prod. Article has no reliable, independent sources, and Google provides none either (only 28 Google hits[48], 31 if you don't add New Zealand to the search. No hits outside Wikipedia for the old name. The organisation existed (and the old name is mentioned in some books[49], but no indepth coverage is found (and there is no mention of the new name in any Google-ized books[50], suggesting that it has sank into oblivion. The weblink given is to a post by the OMU, not some independent review of them. Fram (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Imho, this constitutes a misinterpretation of notability criteria. The point of demanding notability criteria is to weed out spoofs, jokes and organisations solely existing of the www. Political organisations cannot be judged equally to companies, there is little empirical evidence of the self-promotion spamming that is frequent when it comes to political organisations. Some might feel that a certain topic is unintersting and irrelevant, but personally I find the history of the CPNZ highly intriguing, and seen with the backdrop of the NZ left as a whole, OMU is an interesting outfit with a 30+ years of history. WP:PAPER provides an important principle here. --Soman (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Dear, dear. All material on such things is not digitized, and socialist parties without a vast presence on the WWW in this day and age are nevertheless notable and encyclopaedic. Relata refero (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. GHits is certainly not reliable. This party is certainly important for researchers in the area of the politic history and communist history. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment for all these AfD's: it's nice to see the same three people on all these AfD's, certainly when one of them has specifically been asked by one of the others to comment on these[51]. But anyway, i appreciate Relata Refero starting with a condescending "dear, dear", but this just hides the fact that no reliable sources have been provided for any of these articles. Empty claims that it is "important for researchers" and so on should be supported by sources, or ignored by the closing admin.Fram (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Your point? We're all three long-term users with diverse interests. I apologise if the "Dear, dear" irritated you, but sometimes I wonder whether people realise that all the world's information is not already on the Web. Sad.

And as for "empty claims", I am puzzled about which part of "socialist parties without a vast presence on the WWW in this day and age are nevertheless notable and encyclopaedic" is an empty claim. Also, don't be snappish. Relata refero (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And why are they "notable and encyclopedic"? Anyone can start a political party, and certainly the political extremes (far right and far left) are notorious for their groupuscules, with a very limited number of participants and no impact whatsoever. To claim that a party is "notable and encyclopedic" without providing any reference supporting that statement is making an "empty claim". Fram (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, its an opinion. Relata refero (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Leaving 1 (and emphasis on '1') comment on a user talk page is by no means illicit canvassing. --Soman (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - I'm pretty sure we don't need an article on each of the gazillion tiny communist splinter parties that have existed in NZ. Unless it can be shown that this one was notable in some way, we don't need this article, especially since there are good umbrella articles on the history of communism and socialism in NZ. --Helenalex (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Soman. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment on Soman (and therefore also Andrzej) - The notability criteria very clearly go beyond "weed[ing] out spoofs, jokes and organisations solely existing of the www". They say that to merit inclusion in Wikipedia, subject must be notable: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This is not the case here. So far all the advocates of this page have simply asserted that the group is notable, encyclopaediac, interesting etc without providing any evidence. I have an open mind here; I'm willing to accept that they might actually be notable. But nothing I've read has indicated that to be the case. I suggest redirecting this page to Socialism in New Zealand and adding a bit more info on the group to that page. That way, anyone who wants to know about them can. --Helenalex (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Do you really believe that we can fit all this information in another article? Or do you believe that some information contained in there is unnecessary? For me the fact that this party followed the CP of China and after Mao's death is very important. From a political point of view, it's very interesting to know how the international developments affect the creation of political parties around the world. In Greece, we have 5 Maoist organisations and the creation of each one reflects a different significant hisorical event (death of Mao, end of realtions between China-Albania, etc.). In new Zealand, it's very interesting to know the ideological differences between two maoist parties, OMU which established between Mao's death and Communist Party of Aotearoa which originates from the ex-Hoxhaist Communist Party of New Zealand. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment IMO, the only necessary information is: original name, reason for split, new name, publication, all of which could easily fit into an umbrella article, especially if it was in note form. I think you may be over estimating the significance of this party based on Greek history. Although communist parties played a major role in 20th century Greece, the same is not true of New Zealand. We're talking about a party which never had any member elected anywhere (not even local councils), never received a significant share of the vote in any election, and which most New Zealanders would never have heard of. I think the info on the post-Mao split is much more significant when placed in the context of an umbrella article - it does not justify this article. --Helenalex (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flags of North America

This is a gallery, not an article. Such things are better suited to Wikipedia Commons- a navbox/a category connecting these flags is easy enough. Free images can be galleried on Wikimedia Commons, non-free images shouldn't be in galleries anyway. Delete. J Milburn (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete: per nom. This isn't suited for WP. DigitalC (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. There are plates full of pictures of flags in just about every printed encyclopedia of my acquaintance. In any case, all of the articles in the related categories probably ought to be treated the same. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have just realised that other crap exists, I will nominate them should this discussion end in a delete. The fact we have other articles that should be deleted is not a valid reason for keeping this one, and, as I said, though these are certainly useful pages, they are far better suited to Wikimedia Commons. J Milburn (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Why? You didn't address Smerdis' main point, which is that almost every established encyclopedia has flag galleries like this. The average reader would expect to find this content here, not on Commons. Zagalejo^^^ 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep - any established encyclopaedia worth its salt contain flag galleries. Deletion would be a completely retrograde step. EJF (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep - Flag galleries on Wikipedia not only serve readers' expectations about what encyclopedias should contain, they are far more useful than the image collections on Wikimedia Commons in that they link to one or more appropriate articles for further information. I have never understood why flag galleries are not treated with the same respect as stand-alone lists, of which they are a form. --ScottMainwaring (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
keep per Scott. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep: Is a nicely ordered list, that happens to be laid out 2-dimensionally because the items are graphical elements, instead of a single vertical list of text-items. As such, passes WP:LIST with flying colors. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Sometimes, people mistakes Afd for clean-up. If this article is not good, wikify it. Flags of Europe is a very good list of flags. Flags of North America needs more work, not deletion. Zerokitsune (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see the mistake I made. I didn't think to treat this article as a list- if it looked like the European equivilent, I would not have nominated it. J Milburn (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Question: Then does that mean that you withdraw your nomination? If so, then I suggest that the discussion for how this page can be improved take place over on the article talk page. - 52 Pickup (deal) 14:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep and Clean up per Zerokitsune. Such galleries are part of any encylcopedia, but this one needs some work. - 52 Pickup ^(deal) 08:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agree that it can use improvement, but think we can do better than using Flags of Europe as a model. By spreading the flag images linearly down a *long* linear list, that page does not allow quick visual comparison of various designs. I think it is still important to have a "gallery-like" section of the article that allows the flag designs to be presented conveniently in a 2D grid. This might serve as a kind of graphical "table of contents" for the page, which could have a list format (hopefully one more compact and thought-out than used by Flags of Europe). --ScottMainwaring (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was: Nonsense neologism made up at a discussion board. Speedily deleted on the grounds that an article about a word you have invented is essentially an article about you. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bonerphonic

Fails WP:NEO like it's going out of style. скоморохъ 09:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Neologism, or possibly made up — Tivedshambo_(t|c) 09:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TheCoffee (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline: 2008 Calls for Resignation of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

Unencyclopedic in nature and violates WP:NOR †Bloodpack† 08:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Philippine National Broadband Network controversy. It was said in the past versions of the page that it was merged but actually it wasn't. There are still contents that are not merged in NBN controversy article. Also, it does not violate WP:NOR because it has many reliable sources cited. Take note also that we have Timeline of Hello Garci scandal, so, this article should be renamed to Timeline of Philippine National Broadband Network controversy, if it cannot be merged. --Jojit (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is "original research". There is no primary source that exists as a "timeline of gloria's call for resignation". Everything is JUST a compilation of loosely sourced links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and NOT a storybook. This one is more appropriate at the wikinews if you want to keep track of this event's development †Bloodpack† 09:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  - If that is the case, rename the article as I suggested. The sources pass as primary sources for the NBN controversy. --Jojit (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    - I don't think this article is a timeline either, it's mostly a list of reactions from different people and groups. Floro just likes creating his articles with the "Timeline:" "namespace". --Howard the Duck 11:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge that with this article, since that article is not so broad and so compressed only about that ZTE mess. Now, If that article is merged here, this 2008 Timeline of Gloria Resign calls would allow so many edits in view of its broadest subject and contents. At any rate, look at the other sub-articles in Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, my article truly fits there as encyclopedic and should be there as sub-article not merged since Wiki Rules on what is not FORK etc. permits in no uncertain language. Look up the Rules. I want to add this argument against deletion:

[edit] Objection to deletion: Rebuttal Thesis

The Wiki Rule you cited to support deletion, is utterly irrelevant, impertinent and inapplicable to this alleged violation for deletion. It states: "This page in a nutshell: * Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.* Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." You must have cited FORK and what is not Fork, as argued by the proponent Filipino editor who is taking close encounters with each and every article or edit I contributed here. There is no original research here, and all my sources are verifiable and most reliable. The content is not news but encyclopedia article like the sub-articles under Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. I was trained by the Vincentians in Valenzuela, Bulacan from 1965-1970, and by the Jesuits, from 1970-1982, how to discern and to argue. I read the Wiki Rules, and I only find vengeance which is the sole ground to delete my article. I reproduce hereunder, my scholarly penned argument, to prove that the Filipino editors here are in chorus, angelic, wise or otherwise, to vandalize a historical article on GMA's exit. There is no Wiki Rule whether that you cited or any other which can squarely apply to delete this article. But, but, but, I am only one, and I repeatedly said: "Its' your choice!":

"Why should you cite my previous deleted article? I stand by my principle that its deletion was not only unfair, not only against Wiki standards or 5 pillars, not only against the truth, neutrality and objectivity, but as second round rehash of deletion, my formerly deleted article was deleted due to personal tastes defined as hidden agenda of vengeance. Simply put, just because I worked for 2 years for that deleted article, it does not mean that I will prevail over the concerted efforts by Filipino editors to delete it. While crab mentality might not be the proper term, and while vendetta might not be the technical term, suffice it to say, that I remain here as merely one editor. Surprisingly, I lament that my own very co-Filipino editors would delete my very own historical and paranormal / spiritually inspired article which carved the annals or chronicles of Philippine Judicial History. The former deletion is not only an insult to my painful editing (to predict the dire pains that will befell upon the internet and corridors of power), but this second deletion is too much, to bear; and now, technicalities, and long citations of Wiki rules (amid hiding the inner contents and exceptions thereof, and grey areas, WHAT FORK is not) are utilized to delete my scholarly written article. Look at the poorly sourced and not expanded first article. It was lazily written, and the author and other users, just forgot about it, even if MOUNTING calls, inter alia, are unfolding, but the article was not even read or edited to make it Wiki quality article. If the courts of law in the Philippines once accused me of claiming to be the Angel of Death, if I begged for mercy to unveil the truth from my very own[52]counsel of record Rene Saguisag, not just once, but 3 times (the last being at a Hotel on August 29, 2006, to tell him what will happen to him, to Internet users and to all those who bury the truth), and if I repeatedly called him regarding the dire prophecies, lest they scatter around, Dulce Saguisag faced the music I was singing at midnights, Psalm 109 / 73.[53] Now I am again faced by technicalities. Like you, I read Wiki, but the way you read it, it compromised the truth, going into my very own persona. I ask all of you to read the 5 pillars of Wiki and what Fork is not. Verily, Mr. Jun Lozada, Jr. this morning (lambasted and accused my classmate Dep. Executive Secretary for legal affairs, Manny Gaite[54], my seatmate for 4 years in the Ateneo, who also ridiculed me and failed to return my 6 books, for which reason I cursed Ateneo de Manila classes 82, 83, 84, inter alia; Benjamin Abalos also rejected by resume, since he said that the Justices are angry at me, due to the 8 medical surgeries they suffered; Nonoy (his best friend and friend of Mr. Arsenio Abalos, Biyaheng Pinoy) was the one who asked me to submit my resume, and I did. I also submitted my resume and went to Margarito Teves[55] (before Pryde Henry Teves faced the music, the Psalms; as Sec. Eduardo Ermita (before his son lost to Leviste in Batangas) and my classmate Manny Gaite (who is now grilled in the Senate this 11 am as he allegedly kidnapped Lozada and gave the 8 bundles of P 500,000,to Lozada, that was on TV) asked me to apply to the secretaries, inter alia; I submitted my resume to Aquilino Pimentel and his 3 staff and Director interviewed me but was afraid to face me, and thereafter he was operated pinched nerves after the aortic surgery of Miguel Arroyo; Lozada said that in the Philippines, there are many legal luminaries in our legal system, but there is no justice system since all are insisting on technicalities to bury the truth in the name of "legal". ZTE and Lozada articles may be included to IMPROVE crab mentality, in the same manner, that I am writing a manuscript on WORD to improve Psalm 109, the most powerful biblical curse I ever used to imprecate crab mentality forum and blogspot / internet users, inter alia. We users need to expand Wiki to make it and improve it to a better encyclopedia where users like Foreign editors who are very objective, would make it a better book for our future generations. Parenthetically, before I wrote the deleted article of 2006-2007 Standout events, I read Wiki rules on how to write [[56]] this memo into an encyclopedia article. But many Filipino users like accordion made duets or trios researching loopholes, digging Wiki rules in the name of vengeance. Sayang itong article na ito, if you would not be able to read my book that will be uploaded in Lulu.com. Lest I be misconstrued, I do not claim that I have the power to annihilate or as understatement to destroy, since it is the power to tax that is supreme. My GIFT is devastating and more than that. How can I defend my thesis here, in this discussion, against non-deletion of this article, citing paranormal or curse data, if I am only one here against Filipino users and editors. Also, lest I be misinterpreted, again, I even praised and stood corrected when a foreign admin / doctor here gracefully corrected me on edits on health and medicine, to the extent of reminding about blocking my account. Another kind foreign editor also graciously sided with a Filipino user who corrected me. He even deleted my articles on coconut healing oil, but I never complained. He was so professional, being from the UK. But, lest I be misinterpreted, each Filipino user must read between the lines. IN TIME, my dire predictions creep crept and will creep upon ... I have read the 5 pillars, I have read FORK and what it is not, and I have read the ZTE article which, sad to say, was poorly written, sourced and a low class article. How can my scholarly and direly predicted article be just merged or direly deleted? Tell me. Rebut each and every sentence here, for truth's sake. Cite FORK and what Fork is not. Do not be selective. What is your hidden agenda. This article is the FUTURISTIC reading of day to day downfall of GMA. Supposing GMA continuous up t0 2020, supposing on the other hand, that she is assassinated, or deposed, or jailed, and forthwith? Read my talk page of Teresita de Castro: how I predicted there on July 11, her enthronement, on Dec. 4. Sayang naman kung matatanggal lang ito, just because of misreading FORK. Please read professionally, in Wiki style and objectively what Fork is not. I ask you to contribute to this unfolding article by merging the older and poorly written article to this article. I am a prophet, I never commit mistake, I am worth my psychic salt, and history fairly judged me. On August 22, 2005, I lectured for one hour to the very KIND (yes he was, it was not his fault but that of the 8 medically operated Justices) Raul M. Gonzalez, and he asked me that he will talk to the justices. I told him: Sir, please give me a job, so that the decision next year would not be released, I am so afraid of the dire consequences. That was the month, and after that I talked to my classmate Mayor Jerry P. Trenas, Justice Apolinario Bruselas, who penned the rape case, and Justice Lucas Bersamin, whose cousin James and LUIS Bersamin were gunned down in their brains. I lectured for 4 days for 5 hours to the 2nd most powerful person in our Court Leonardo A. Quisumbing as I denounced and cursed Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. who fixed my case. I have no remorse, since because of these HYPOCRISY, I am here with you. But you deleted all these TRUTHS and FACTS. Once deleted I can never write these truths on your poorly created 2006 -2007 events. You should deleted that article since WikiPedia is an encyclopedia, and not WikiNews. Why create yearly an article it if FORK, there is already a Philippine History article. I repeat, I am the only User is Wiki who is world-famous and a prophet, all I wrote were written in full Trance and I do not commit mistake. I submit my thesis to you in this discussion page.

Many Filipinos - users vandalized my articles, in the name of merger, deletion, etc., forgetting the letter and spirit of the 5 pillars / FORK and what is not FORK. [I never complained against good foreign editors. They have no hidden or personal agenda]. But Filipino editors (I say this as authority, since I registered in more than 140 forums, and knew the definition of crab mentality). You and many Filipino users prejudged my articles by vandalism, without even bothering to read and consider from the objective point of Wiki view like foreign editors, my submissions, argument and links (blogs), to support my several thesis. My merged articles lost their important links, edits and ingredients in the name of Wiki Rules which were used to tailor tastes and subjective insults. Its' your choice. Vide many Filipino stub and long articles of cinema which are poorly sourced without citations or references; but you do not bother to vandalize them or suggest their deletion / merger. Most of them are ADS, advertisements and spams. My articles are from the point of Wiki, treasure-prophetic articles which would be used later on by future Wiki readers. I repeat: It's your choice.

As I told you, and repeatedly said: I am willing to be corrected since I want to learn. Most of you know how to use the computer; today, even Grade II students know how to use PCs. I only touched internet when I was googled on April, 2006. Why should I complain when I need to learn, especially, as you see, the Wiki Rules were made and edited by so many users, where the contents are not the real policies. I told you to look at many spam advertisement and poorly written articles I expanded on movies, cinemas here. It is nightmare. Now, I admit that most of my edits are not really summary style, since many stubs and articles are too short and would be edited per rare news on them, so I added more than just a sentence. But I added summary edits on long articles. It is a case to case basis. I am a prophet, and I know all those who inspect my works, select the defects, and choose Wiki rules to pin me down. You are not lawyers, and I am one. We mastered the art to deceive. We can write a decision to seal the destiny of a generation or to award $ billion worth of properties using intricate rules and jurisprudence, this is what Lozada says: legal system, not the "justice system"; like here in Wiki, there are rules, but they are not the policy of Wiki. The spirit and the letter must govern; you know statutory construction, it applies to Wiki. If we discuss in this talk page, about birds, titles, flu or ducks I cannot write lenghtily on this. But the first article you deleted and this second one, were the product of my 8 years toil, labor and nightly curses. I worked on the sources of the article first deleted for 2 years. Do you know that I spent 6 years of my life, every midnights CURSING the corrupt judiciary so that, as LUIS promised me, the 2 parents and wife of 2 Chief Justices Reynato Puno and Hilario Davide, Jr. would mercilessly died of surgery and lingering illness AFTER the release of my decision. Do you know how every night since 1999, I obeyed them and labored to ignited by violet lights, the 2007 fires that halved the logo and seals of the Supreme Court, Comelec and Court of Appeals, and Muntinlupa Metropolitan Trial Court? Why not behave like the Uk and French admins here who corrected me, in Wiki style. Filipino users here are selective, they want to destroy good articles in the name of wiki "legals. Read the contents of the deleted article and this article: the treasure is there, deeply, and inside: the Curse; will they stay only in blog, forums and be deleted in this great encyclopedia? I repeat: as I told Rene Saguisag: It's your choice. -- --Florentino floro (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

May I plead to Floro to please shorten your replies. No one would have to patience to read all of that. thanks. --Howard the Duck 09:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] not-so-random section break

Delete: I was done with the merge, and I mainly left out the fringe groups and minor people such as "Management Association of the Philippines", "UP professors", "Global Source", "Geneva Forum for Philippine Concerns, Migrante, Akbayan and Bagtasan", Jovito Salonga (long retired, although he still routinely issues out his opinions), "Tacloban City Militant groups", "Law students", the "latest IBON survey (not related). If anyone wants to add their positions (I think Salonga's can be added), feel free but lets have a priority on what to add "for Pete's sake since he said something". --Howard the Duck 09:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete the first article or at the very least merge it here. Reasons: That article is written like a news article. WikiPedia is an encyclopedia, and must have global impact. Verily, upon a cursory perusal of that ZTE article, especially its latest additions, I am sure, that such article can be a forum thread instead and be deleted or merged with my article. --Florentino floro (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- How would you describe the Timeline: 2008 Calls for Resignation of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo article? The fact that it is written in prose line hints that it is the "lesser" article. --Howard the Duck 09:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Huwaat? Delete the Philippine national broadband network controversy instead? You serious? Delete the most searcheable/popular item found in the internet? What if i want to know more about ZTE and national broadband network and stuff? Should I keyword "timeline" instead? †Bloodpack† 09:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. And Please, Florentino floro, limit your responses. This AfD and the talk page of this article are muddied by your long rants.Beeblbrox (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Amend the title of this article, then, Merge the ZTE article with this article:

Just because a Filipino editor here, had not only from the very start but even during the 2nd round of deletion of my first article, decided at all cost to dig Wiki Rules and twist their intent, letter and spirit, to delete my article, that would not in any manner erase the persona vendetta as sole ground for deletion. It is too obvious that even non-psychics, agnostics, skeptics and priests, need not be too objective to discern the motive. Now, how can style or prose determine the value or content or importance of the article. My very own article Florentino V. Floro was written by an honest guy, but so ignorant of Wiki rules upon, examining the edits, but the administrator, gracefully and objectively did edit my article/bio since it has world-famous content wise or otherwise. A Filipino editor, no matter how he or she cites the rules, cannot hide the hidden agenda or hypocrisy. For this reason, I even examined the edit mergers made by such editor even if there is no ruling here yet. My long disquisition and argument here, is sufficient to define Filipino crab mentality. We must expand this article to exemplify what is happening in WikiPedia. As a prophet, like the 11 apostles who were crucified and put to death, I have no match with Filipino editors here who are so brilliant like the Pharisees with the law and rules. They memorized Wiki but they never learned of the basic, common sense spirit and letter of the Wiki Rules. I had been in law practice since 1985, and I know and knew lawyers, liars, and hypocrites. I know antics, tactics and how to destroy. I memorized crab mentality, I memorized the Codes. But I look at the inner self of a person. This is my GIFT of prophecy. I know evil and good. Ergo, I always use Psalm 109 and 73 to annihilate contra persecution. Here, it is the same. Even before my article was posted here, I know that the same Filipinos are, at all cost, here to destroy my work. And I have no numbers. I repeat: "It's your choice!" --Florentino floro (talk) 11:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

comment That is at least your third vote/rant. Please be more succinct and limit yourself to one vote. PleaseBeeblbrox (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

delete - belongs in Wikinews. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If your read my long argument (to support my thesis), I stressed that I am only one versus many Filipino users here. I have no bitterness against foreign users, they are most professional. In fact, when foreign admins and users deleted, merged or re-directed my coconut healing oil articles, I bowed down to their respectful messages and short argument. This, I do not file long argument versus foreign editors, on my articles. Here, I am submitting an expose of vandalism of my articles here by Filipino users or editors, in the name of creation of first article, citing many Wiki rules. But their agenda is a concerted effort to make contempt of a good article. Just that. I repeatedly stressed that I have one vote. But, in my talk page, I was encouraged to participate in this discussion. Hence, I submitted my thesis, this way. - --Florentino floro (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

delete Not only is this article not neutral and not encyclopedic and a content fork. But Floro also purports it to be somehow a fulfillment of his prophecy. Plus I'm being persecuted is not a reason to keep an article. maxsch (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per Howard the Duck. And the more someone Filibusters in an AFD the less impressed I am by their arguments. Edison (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:SOAP. Florentino floro's rants have some merit though. I am grateful to him for introducing me to the crab mentality. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

comment The problem is that Florentino floro wants to make this a debate about him and his conflicts with other Filipino editors. This is a debate about whether this article belongs in Wikipedia, there are appropriate places to discuss interpersonal conflicts on Wikipedia, but AfD is not one of them. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

RejoinderWell, I am just a year here, and I thought that I can submit a legal thesis or the like, to support my one vote or stance in this discussion. I was the one invited to join this, as I was sent message in my talk page; hence, I offered all my argument, despite that from the very start and before, Filipino editors are all out to destroy my articles. My valid arguments, though had already been thrown out, hence, there is nothing left but to issue the ruling. I do not want to go into interpersonal conflicts in Wiki, since "the" Filipino editors are definitely into crab mentality; like bamboo, they cannot be changed, much lest perverted. Rule, then. - --Florentino floro (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect Since Howard Merged info from here, we can't simply delete it due to GFDL restrictions. Redirecting this to the ZTR article would be the best option available.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Impression - I read your user page: "The award are for people who have argued in the Afd against all odds and won or who have given impressive contributions (Keep) or arguments (Delete) that convinced many editors about their stand." Actually, When this article's deletion tag message invited me to join this discussion, I was writing the Second Part of my book. So, this is my break: since writing the prophecy of deaths and accidents is too tough, since it involved the merciless annihilation of my enemies and evil. This discussion on deletion is blessing in disguise. Since 1999 until February 10, 2006, when we shouted against each other, I had been 80 times for 100 hours lecturing to Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr.. I cursed this man on February 10, 2006, since he called me home to go to his office. He noticed that I was so angry at him, since from August 22, 2005, when I lectured for one hour to Raul M. Gonzalez, where my right hand caused his kidney transplant, I got mad at Justice Hermosisima, Jr. since he was so stubborn to tell the Court the truth, covering up his corrupt deeds. I told him, that he was so merciless in convicting by final judgment the accused in Ninoy case who were already acquitted by entry of judgment, by Justice Manuel Pamaran, making him the most evil magistrate on earth. Because of that, he was elevated by Cory to the top and by Fidel Ramos to the Supreme Court and to the JBC as 3 termer by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. At the center of our February 10, 2006, shouting, when I cursed him, he told me that I must dismiss Rene Saguisag as my counsel of record so that the Court will decide my case. I told him that I had given [[Rene Saguisag all the chances on this planet to repent, but he failed. They FIXED my case to save his career. I was so impressed by your user page quotation, since life is such ... we are faced with so many crabs. I was almost banned here, due to a sockpuppet charge by my very own Meycauayan, Bulacan townmate, my very own, alma mater school mate St. Mary's Academy, and my very own school mate Ateneo de Manila user here. I know that my first article deleted which contained my horrible and dire predictions on our crab mentality judiciary was unceremoniously deleted. By whom? Good if it was deleted by foreign users, but by my very own Filipino editors? It is too much. I am not a fake, I am a prophet who lectured for hours ONE ON ONE with Leonardo A. Quisumbing and for 100 hours to Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr., inter alia. I also lectured to Joseph Estrada before JV Bautista, on 2001, when I foretold his judicial but not political vindication (due to a little poor girl who cried to be recognized, J.R. from Caloocan). I want to prove to Filipinos here that I wield the GIFT and lest dire events befall upon a chosen few, I want to share with you this part of my book which proves how corrupt our judiciary is: my 100 hours, 80 visits LECTURE and physical healing of the body of Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr., the most powerful jurist in Philippine judicial history: book part E hermosisima.doc of size 153 KB[57]- Description: Book of Judge Floro, Part 2, C, Justice Hermosisima, Jr. - --Florentino floro (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Philippine National Broadband Network controversy, but only if a place is found in that article for all of this content; otherwise, keep, rename and reorganize it. Everyking (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, Rename. I fully agree, and thanks, this is the best vote to preserve such an article that is being watched worldwide, in view of the HOUR TO HOUR watch on Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's last days, if ever. International media (Vide: Google News) scores the contents of this article on mounting calls, especially from ASAR (students) and military groups, for the imminent snap polls, leave, exit or even bloodshed that is unfolding. The first article on ZTE is nothing but about Lozada and the Chinese deal. But this article is more monumental than Edsa II, etc., sub-article under Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Day to day events from today and especially on February 25 will definitely spell GMA's last days. - --Florentino floro (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I beg you to read my long argument above (called rant by many editors here). Please please and please, I beg all Filipino Editors and admins to accept that: a) while I was fighting for the life of my article on PGMA exit mounting calls, with bated breath, I did b) prophecy with virtual reality TIMELINE, my impeccable written i) (2002) and ii) yesterday prediction here, Wiki written prophecy, as I did for Teresita de Castro on July 11, 2007 her talk page, her Dec. 5 appointment - the hospitalization of Alfredo Benipayo right on time I exploded my anger against my persecution. On February 22, 2008, 3 p.m., Alfredo Benipayo (Dean of the faculty of civil law at the University of Santo Tomas) was hospitalized in Iloilo City's Saint Paul's Hospital. At the middle of his lecture before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Iloilo Chapter in a hotel, he collapsed.gmanews.tv, Ex-Comelec chief Benipayo rushed to hospital in Iloilo +

The best edits I ever had, are not my scholarly written Wikipedia articles on law, but my short edits on the current events supported by media links, on the horrible deaths, pains, illnesses and accidents of all those who made me suffer for 8 years since July 20, 1999: when Alfredo Benipayo signed my longest preventive suspension[58]in world judicial history. As I was writing my 700 pages book, on current, (the 357 pages first part was published last year), or yesterday, I included therein Benipayo's angioplasty on February 21, 2001 which I did predict and cause, and yesterday, as the violet light struck when I was fighting for the AFD, I will prove to the entire world who googled me on April 6, 2006, that LUIS as king of kings of elementals, who wield for me the GIFT to block the vessels of my persecutors. And Wikpedia as encyclopedia is the best vehicle to make encyclopedic the events which would permanently make my footprints in the chronicles of judicial history and psychic phenomena.- --Florentino floro (talk) 06:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of us have read your "long argument" and you have now had your say. You can stop adding more rants to this page. wikipedia is not a "vehicle" for you to make your "footprints". It is starting to sound like you have an egotistical agenda and that is not appropriate.maxsch (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Note Anyone who wants to understand what is really going on here should read [[59]] Beeblbrox (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. May need cleanup, cites. Bearian (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of stand-up comedians

This article has no merit whatsoever. I mean come on, a list of stand-up comedians by nation? I just can't imagine a situation where someone needs to look up a list of generic comedians from nation of origin... tbone (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - It's verifiable, so it meets WP:V, and there are definitely WP:RS out there for these people. Secondly, this nomination reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 08:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course I don't like it; however, the reason I don't like it is its flimsy significance, and according to WP:DP, even with WP:IDONTLIKEIT in mind, that is a just argument. We're not talking about a band, song, ice hockey team or anything else that could viewed with extreme subjective discretion... We're talking about non-first rate, low class articles. It's articles like these that provide people with a reason for calling Wikipedia excessive and even moronic. - tbone (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep this sort of humor is, after all, very national-specific. Seems a sensible way of doing it. DGG (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Seems to have too many red links which are unsupported by citations. Since the list is long, is there an easy way of removing all these? Colonel Warden (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Probably, "it's verifiable" is the weakest argument on here. I suppose one could say that about any list or article. This is the classic indiscriminate list, and it's unsourced. I guess I'm not up on all the fifty Brazilian comedians (or maybe more like fifty bazillion comedians) on this silly list. Mandsford (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, decent list with a very reasonable breakdown. (The only other ones I can think of, off-hand, are a) language; b) floruit; c) a very fuzzy genre approach.) This could further split into individual lists when merited. If redlinks are a problem they can be phased out (I would start with a talk page warning and a grace period). --Dhartung | Talk 11:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
If this were a "List of actors" or a "List of singers", separated by nationality, I don't think it would last. There are few lists that are truly "unmaintainable", but this falls in that category. You have to rely purely on faith about whether the names that you don't recognize are notable even in their home country, or even that they're comedians. And since it's a pure act of faith, any name can be put here. Did you do a routine at the Holiday Inn in Schenectady a couple of years ago? You need to put your name on the Wikipedia list of stand-up comedians. Mandsford (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. If you must reference by countries, use categories, not lists. Majoreditor (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Unmanagable list. Redundant to the Category:Stand-up comedians by country scheme, which can do the job better. PC78 (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete unmanageable as is. Having separate lists for individual countries would make more sense but these articles quickly become vanity magnets. The editing cost of maintaining the list exempt from comedian-spam is not worth the very very tiny advantage over the categories. Pichpich (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djsasso (talk • contribs)

[edit] Mt Eliza Cricket Club

Non-notable cricket club. The competition this club plays in is not fully professional and the overwhelming majority of players would be amateurs. The article is entirely unreferenced, including the claim to notability. Mattinbgn\^talk 08:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 08:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete -- nn sporting club. - Longhair\^talk 09:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete; constructed by single-article author, it may be prominent in Mount Eliza but in a wider context appears to be non-notable suburban club. Murtoa (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Twenty Years 13:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus = default Keep. --VS ^talk 10:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Sledziejowski

Non-notable per WP:BIO. Holds an important position (Chief Executive Officer) at an financial company, but has not done anything notable to reference to. Gary King (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep " Senior Vice President of Investments at Prudetnial Securities, Inc. and its successor Wachovia Securities, " is a very significant financial position. There sould certainl be references, which are needed. We are underrepresented with business people. DGG (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Entry shold be kept, but does need more references
Weak Delete because I can't verify the claims. He appears to have been an investment consultant but he only graduated HS in 99] so I highly question whether he's held the stated positions. Delete unless someone can verify the claims are true. Travellingcari (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Verification...Keep here is what I found: www.finra.org, finra broker check allows to check employment history of every investment professional...dates and companies seem to check out...also current employer TWS Financial, LLC. according to Finra site is a registered broker/dealer, subsidiary of Innovest Holdings, LLC, which in turn is ran by Roman Sledziejowski according to official disclosures (to verify: www.finra.com, "finra broker check", type in firm name: TWS Financial, LLC. and see full PDF report) It seems that the company operates one of the major online broker sites: www.tradewallstreet.com in addition to other activities: www.tws-international.com This seems to be a major operation. Found another article written about him published in The Wall Street Journal on September 4, 2001 by Kris Mahr Dell769 —Preceding comment was added at 03:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete. I'm very skeptical of the claims. Sure, he looks like he was interning on Wall Street while in high school, but "senior vice president" of all of Prudential? Or even a significant/notable part of Prudential? At about age 21? Here he was a "Financial Advisor" in 2003. At best the title SVP may have come later and indicate a courtesy title over a group of other investment managers but he certainly seems to have been in a customer-facing role, unsurprising given his age. If he really were as DGG would have it in a major Wall Street position, the business publications would be crammed with information about him, quotes from him, interviews with him, prognostication about his moves. I see none of that, and he left Prudential to join a start-up. --Dhartung | Talk 11:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete unless better refs are provided; with current ones it may as well be a hoax. If proper references provided, my vote is abstain.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete I was unable to find significant media coverage or verifiable sources asserting the subject meets WP:BIO. Dloh cierekim Deleted? 19:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep - the person seems genuine, don't know how notable as a CEO of Wachovia Securities? Added reference. greg park avenue (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chief mouser to the cabinet office

Not notable enough for a page of its own, I suggest moving it back to 10 Downing Street [60]. Hera1187 (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep not notable according to what--your personal evaluation (or mine, I couldnt care less about it either), of what is important? there are published sources in major newspapers, so the public thinks its important and we follow them. The outside world is the judge of notability. We just record it. DGG (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep It has sources from 5 reputale media organisations. That is how we define notability and as such it is notable enough for an article. Woody (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep I know it might seem slight and unimportant, but it is clearly notable and public interest in the subject is clearly there. Alberon (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Notability established by sources, probably split out of 10 Downing Street because that article is getting a bit big. Fosnez (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. --Philip Stevens (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete The refs do not show that each of the cats named in the succession box had the title claimed for it as "Chief mouser to the cabinet office." Several articles about several different cats do not prove the notability of the article's subject, and is an example of original research in the form of synthesis. A couple of the stories described one of the cats with the article's title, so the article could be redirected to that cat's article. The article uses one story's fanciful claim of official mousers at Downing Street back to Henry VIII's reign, but one ref says there has been an official cat (minus the title) since only 1929. Edison (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- The articles are about the cat, and I suggest re-reading the synthesis guidelines. The BBC article states that the nickname is sometimes used. I am sure that you can find more documents, most of them official Hansard documents pertaining to the cats. I think an argument could be made to move it to 10 Downing Street cat. The Henry VIII statement is highly dubious as there was no 10 Downing Street nor the position of PM back then. Yet the dubiousness (?) of a statement is not a reason to delete the article that contains it. Woody (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I could support a move to 10 Downing Street cat, but there are ample references for the topic. I've added a couple Churchill-era cats with citations. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
keep per Fosnez and Woody. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - it would seem somewhat silly to include this (amusing) article in one about a serious seat of government. It has notability and sources, what more do you want? It also has a nice furry tail, and who can argue with such a thing? -mattbuck (Talk) 09:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep - Can't understand the grounds for the nom. Notability is clear. --Dweller (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Dolly Rocker Movement

Does not meet WP:MUSIC requirements. No secondary sources or notability established. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 07:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also including the album articles in the AfD:

Delete per nom. Additionally both album articles are almost entirely copied from this site with no mention of source or evidence of permission, and have been speedied accordingly. Jeodesic (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] J.CO Donuts

There is no verifiability and notability established. The article has been in existence for quite some time, and has not been improved.

Moreover - the article does read like spam. Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 08:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Very very weak keep - The article isn't cited, but that isn't a reason for deletion. WP:CORP states that if the subject is covered by reliable, secondary sources, they qualify under the criterion. [61] and [62] could be considered secondary sources, and they are both certainly reliable. It does claim that they are comparable to Krispy Kreme, and as far as spam, I don't think it really was intended as spam, nor does it read so. Jd027^chat 16:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 bio, COI concerns --Step hen 23:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Senshin fredrikssson

Non-notable biography per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Not necessarily a delete reason but almost definite WP:COI too. tomasz. 14:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 independent sources to show notability. --Step hen 22:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AgriFeeds

Non-notable website, as per WP:WEB. Gary King (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gary, we have tried to follow the template used for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojo.com. AgriFeeds a specialised freely available tool for news and events aggregation in agriculture, forestry, fisheries etc. This aggregator of domain specific news and events is facilitated by major players in the arena of agriculture such as FAO, DFID, CGIAR, etc. The page has been revised. Please see again and advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.202.109.232 (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

comment I'd like to think it notable, but this would need some sort of outside sourcing to shown that people do know about it and use it and think it important. DGG (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment to the IP - presumably "we" is the Food And Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Do you have a conflict of interest? EJF (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone, yes, in this case "we" is FAO but "we" also is actually those who have initiated the efforts. FAO is facilitator because we have contributed with our resources but the driver behind is also the communities. It is also our objective to serve the agricultural (including all the others like forestry, fisheries, etc.) with more specific information and this is one effort towards it. Lastly, this is a free service and it would be good to raise awareness in all means possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.202.109.232 (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sky Spear

I don't think this would be considered notable; can't find any references. Gary King (talk) 07:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If anyone can find a source, it would appear notable. anything in Chinese? DGG (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep I have found a source, but It really needs the eyes of someone who can read chinese. here is the source I found, and here is where I would recommend people look for more sources. Subject's notability would seem to be established from the google hits returned and the english article I added. Fosnez (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep for now Looks like it may be a notable weapon. Dgf32 (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Pb30. Non-admin closure. Icestorm815 • Talk 05:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Knarfs

Non-notable club Gary King (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

delete seems like spam to me! Mjroots (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Appears to be a non-notable organization based on the text of the article. I did a Google search to see if I could find anything more, but wasn't able to find any articles for this organization. --Smiller933 (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buddy Kreme

Non-notable musician, per WP:MUSIC. Gary King (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom, unsourced. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom, RiverHockey, likely WP:COI/WP:SPAM too. tomasz. 14:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC according to my searches. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Udo I

Non-notable biography; made up? Per WP:BIO and related to this article. Gary King (talk) 06:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsure, not that these pass RS but they appear to verify his existence. If he was indeed a Count, I believe that's notability. Question is whether his existence and 'counthood' can be verified. Until then, neutral. Travellingcari (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails verifiability requirements. Part of a series of stub articles created by the same user or two new users about supposed nobility who lived in the Dark Ages. Use references, or at least one solid reference to satisfy verifiability, or don't create the article. Too much opportunity for hoaxes if we allow the creation of stubs about a plethora of supposed nobles from that era. Once the existence of the person is proved, then we can start debating whether the person is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. I do not see that having a name and a title automatically proves notability, because the title might not have signified the same importance in that era. Edison (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Titles of nobility had considerably more importance in that era than now. matt91486 (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment I question your blanket claim, and note that the title of nobility was doubtless different in the Dark Ages from that stated now, since the language was doubtless different. A "Count" might have been a "Village chieftain." Edison (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Graf is the article on German counts. I see no evidence for your assertion that it is equivalent to a village chieftain, so I'm going to assume you are operating on a purely hypothetical basis. Regardless of language differences, noble titles in modern society are essentially ceremonial, where as in the medieval period, it provided a degree of power and land ownership. So I feel fairly confident in saying that any medieval count is more important than any count today, simply because modern European countries no longer use Feudalism as a structure. matt91486 (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
A "Chief" of a Native American community was sometimes described in European accounts as a "King" and his daughter of no noble pretension whatsoever might be described as a "Princess." The head man of a community or the warlord of a district in the year 700 did not have the same role in society as a Count or Baron in the 1400's or some other era. Note that the period of these articles is the Dark Ages, not the Medieval period. Few documents exist from the era in question. Much is supposition and legend and there is conflation of different individuals with the same name. There should be no such articles without reliable sourcing, and blogs do not count. We should not allow supposition to be entered into Wikipedia articles and thereafter cited as proof for someone's genealogical fancies or for unsourced histories. Edison (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You're still assuming a lot hypothetically, here. I'm not saying this article would be easy to source, and certainly not with online sources, but it maybe could be done with a trip to a proper research library. It should be tagged with sources for a while first before outright deletion, because we do have loose evidence that he did exist. matt91486 (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If there are two history books which present the person's name, dates and location, that would be a good start. But I want to discourage creation of lots of unsourrced stubs about supposed historical figures. If the article creator is looking at a book with the facts he wants to put in the article, then include the references at the start. That said, lots of genealogical "facts" from the dark ages were made up by writers in the medieval period hundreds of years later. Biographies which are not from contemporary accounts, should sometimes be labelled as "legendary," like the medieval accounts of King Arthur's court. Edison (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment These books seem to refer to this guy (search in them for "Udo") but they are rather vague and place him about a century later. There might be more here but I don't have time to do any more for now. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Le Jan has a family tree for the ancestors of the Robertians on p. 440 of Famille et Pouvoir, and this guy isn't on it. If you look at the seemingly well-referenced de:Popponen, that shows this supposed person's father with two sons, neither of them this chap. The fact that the other articles are chock full of doubtful material means we can't keep this in the absence of solid references. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Note. See WP:ANI#elaborate scam.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Especially in the light of this looks very much like a hoax. The connection to some other, even more dubious articles makes this by far the most likely explanation. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as failing WP:V. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete per nom. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ruthard Baron von Aargau

Non-notable biography; no references can be found. Nomination per WP:BIO. Also related to this article, the person's apparent son. Gary King (talk) 06:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep Important nobility, but it needs something in the way of sources.DGG (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails verifiability requirements. Part of a series of stub articles created by the same user about supposed nobility who lived in the Dark Ages. Use references, or at least one solid reference to satisfy verifiability, or don't create the article. Too much opportunity for hoaxes if we allow the creation of stubs about a plethora of supposed nobles from that era. Once the existence of the person is proved, then we can start debating whether the person is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. I do not see that having a name and a title automatically proves notability, because the title as translated might not have signified the same importance in that era. Edison (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Edison. I tried and failed to find any verification of notability, even existence, using a variety of alternate spellings. His brother Waldo is certainly notable, but hardly anything on Waldo even mentions his family. I don't think it's a hoax, necessarily, but it certainly isn't something that has unambiguous notability even through a title. --Dhartung | Talk 11:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I can find this person in Regine Le Jan's Famille et Pouvoir dans le monde Franc, which indexes him grandly as "Cancor, count of the Oberrheingau, son of Rutpert I and Willeswinthe, husband of Angila". No, I don't know why the article calls him Ruthard. Perhaps that's his name in German. As with his son, Le Jan has a moderate amount to say about him, enough for a modest article by the time some minimal context is added. Agai there may be information of relevance in Gockel's Karolingische Königshöfe am Mittelrhein. Nice to see my personal library is better than Google when it comes to obscure Carolingian nobles, a subject not especially dear to my heart it should be said. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, I should add that almost everything the article says is wrong, but that's another matter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

But we have an article at Cancor, and we don't need two. As search terms go, this is not such a very likely one, but a redirect to there would be fairly harmless. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect - That would explain why I couldn't find his name mentioned in the sources. If we already have an article on the subject, than there really is no need for this one. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

How about Richbold, Count of Breisgau, Ruthard's supposed father? — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems altogether less probable. Le Jan shows Cancor's paternal grandfather as name unknown (table 16, p. 199) or doesn't show him at all in favour of his maternal grandfather (table 55, p. 400). Riché's table of Robertians (Les Carolingiens, table xviii) doesn't go back beyond Cancor's father. The fr:Robertiens article says his name was Lam[pb]ert, but according to Le Jan's table 16 this mistakes Robert/Rupert, father of Cancor, with a cousin of the same name. Richbold and Udo are very fishy indeed. This kind of dubious genealogical material has also been added to Conradine dynasty, Gebhard, Count of the Lahngau and Waldo of Reichenau. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Hoax. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
On the whole, we might as well delete this I suppose. No great loss. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 03:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy

This article has been tagged for speedy with the reason being that it was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD) discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okashina Okashi, and is substantially identical to the version of the page that was deleted. (CSD G4). The hang-on request noted that "I'm not sure what the original version of this article looked like, since I didn't even know there was an original version. However, this one has 3 secondary references, which would seem to meet the WP:WEB criteria for notability. Also, several of the reasons given in the AfD mentioned in the speedy nomination (VANITY, NPOV, NOR, COPYVIO, AB) no longer apply. So a speedy isn't appropriate." In comparing the two articles I do see some differences which makes this hang-on request worthy of consideration by the wiki community. --VS ^talk 06:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(First debate link to article of similar name is here)--VS ^talk 06:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Just to clarify, are you neutral in this discussion, then? Just want to know if you're voting to delete by nomination or just observing administrative protocol. Buspar (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Yes I do not have an opinion on this article. Thank you for your question.--VS ^talk 09:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep From reading the old AfD, the article was deleted under a different name for not meeting WP:WEB. Looks like the argument last time was that it only had one secondary source, the Hess publication, last time, which isn't enough to establish notability. But this time there are three secondary sources, so this seems to be satisfied. Buspar (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Quite a few of the arguments on the previous AFD were that one of the comic's authors (Xuanwu) had contributed to the previous version; he has yet to appear in the edit logs of this version, and the AfD applies to this version, not the previous one. A separate case for deleting this version has not been made, but assuming it is implied that the old reasons (WP:WEB, WP:VANITY, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:AB) still apply: WEB no longer applies per Buspar and VirtualSteve; the article is not (and never was) primarily about the comic's authors, so AB does not apply; the comic's authors have not edited this version, so VANITY does not apply; COPYVIO does not apply to this version (and had been fixed in the previous version before the AfD was complete anyway); NPOV applied neither to the old version nor to this version (the only argument that it did was that one of the comic's authors contributed, but he contributed in a NPOV manner, and again, said author has yet to even contribute to this version); and both the original version and this version cited sources, so NOR does not apply. That seems to leave no reason to delete. Winged Cat (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep WP:WEB says an article needs multiple non-trivial sources and I spot 3, plus a primary published by a reputable third party. About the only thing I can see here to argue for deletion is quibbling over whether the sources given count as trivial. The two online sources don't seem to be trivial, however, since: (1) they don't simply give the Internet address, (2) they don't simply report when the content is updated, (3) they're not brief summaries of the content (the New Haven Register article is about how this comic and others are being used to teach kids, the other mentions that one of the creators has served as a panelist at a notable convention), and (4) neither source is a directory. Since we clearly have multiple non-trivial sources, this article passes WP:WEB strongly. 130.49.157.75 (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
keep per Winged and and the anon above me. Although I'm not completely convinced that the New Haven Register is a reliable source (I'm not inclined to consider local newspapers to be very reliable and as a resident of New Haven my impression of the NHR isn't exactly very favorable). JoshuaZ (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Does keep mean keep the article? Or the AfD? Keep the article, remove the AfD. AfDs must actually have something seriously wrong with it, they should not simply be because of a repost or "non-notability". "Non-notability" should never be the sole issue. Let's look at Strange Candy, shall we? This comes up as AfD (guess who always nominates it) again and again, for probably the same "reasons" as claimed. Is it notable? Well, let's see... the host forum, Professor forum is reasonably active, and not just this, the webcomic is also hosted and discussed on another site called Ponju.net (few webcomics have support of TWO different forums). Second, the comic itself can be viewed as notable for its sheer length and run-time (few comics run for 6 years, making it additionally notable). So in at least two ways, it has been shown as notable. Is the page copyright violated then? Nope, the page is actually very well-sourced. The only valid reason given is that it is a repost. Well, let's think about this, if the AfD in the first place was a good call, why did anyone bother to repost it? Except on uncyclopedia, few articles that are patent nonsense or otherwise considered junk ever get revived. Some fanbase must have need of the information (either to keep character names straight and remember information, or simply to learn side information about the authorship) for it to be revived. -(removed the trivia section) Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as recreation of deleted material that is not substantially different from the previous AfD. This topic is still non-notable, we still lack information verifiable from multiple non-trivial sources, and we therefore end up with an article based primarily on original research, which gives this topic undue weight over similar non-notable comics. For example, the best source we have is a story from the New Haven Register that is so trivial it doesn't even mention this webcomic's address, or when it is updated, or any of the characters' names, or any of the comic's stories, or the type of art in the comic, or any single quality of the comic at all. It instead gives us the phone number of the library, the hours and cost of one of their programs, three paragraphs of detail about a ten-year-old's comic called Moosey Moose, and an entire paragraph about the "Can of Inspiration." Why? Because, based on the sources we have, this webcomic is less notable than a single library's after-school program, or a comic a ten-year-old made up one day, or a can "on the table, filled with slips of paper bearing words and phrases intended to spark thought." We honestly have better sources for an article on Cans filled with slips of paper than we do this comic. Keep in mind that instructors use comics in teaching all the time. It is a common, not a notable achievement that a comic was used in teaching, and it is certainly not a notable achievement that an instructor used one of their own comics while teaching. --Dragonfiend (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"We therefore end up with an article based primarily on original research." My understanding is that if an article assert notability (which this does) and that the assertion of notability is backed by secondary sources (which it is), that is sufficient to keep an article, even if the content summary is based mainly on primary sources (i.e. the comic itself). So WP:OR doesn't appear to be an issue here. On the notability issue, the reporter, who appears to have been observing a session, thought the use of this comic was important enough to mention it explicitly by name. I count two paragraphs dedicated to the use of comics in the project, in which this one is mentioned twice alongside Questionable Content and another I'm not familiar with. This suggests an importance beyond it being incidental. Buspar (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not a notable achievement if you create a webcomic and then use your own comic while teaching in some volunteer library program. That is exceedingly trivial; not of encyclopedic importance. --Dragonfiend (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a specific basis for your argument of triviality? Otherwise it would seem to be, as GarryKosmos below puts it, a matter of opinion. The reporter thought it was important enough to mention and I think her judgment in the matter carries more weight in this sort of discussion. Buspar (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#NEWS Just because something was mentioned in a newspaper does not mean it is of encyclopedic importance. Newspapers write about the trivial happenings at local schools and libraries all the time. And again, a comic a ten-year-old made up one day got more substantive coverage in that article than this webcomic did. And if you have to describe the coverage of this webcomic as a "mention," then it's pretty trivial and does not meet our Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. We can't write encyclopedia articles based on "mentions" without devolving into original research and personal POV. --Dragonfiend (talk) 11:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "not news" applies here, because the article here isn't an announcement, sports coverage, or tabloid. I think you're probably arguing from the stance that while the event is notable, the comic (like an individual) isn't. But that's countered by "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event," as there's more than one secondary source in this article plus a primary. "And if you have to describe the coverage of this webcomic as a "mention," then it's pretty trivial." I didn't have to describe it with mention, I just chose to use that word. I could have also used "highlighted," "recognized," "acknowledged," or a dozen other synonyms. Please refrain from nitpicking word choice, it's not conducive to a good AfD discussion. :) "We can't write encyclopedia articles based on "mentions" without devolving into original research and personal POV." Can you identify an instance of OR in the article? I'm pretty sure there isn't, since the assertions of notability are supported by sources. The presence of POV (again, I'm pretty there isn't any, but if you spot some feel free to fix it) is weak grounds for deletion, per WP:AFD. I understand what you're getting at, but I think that's a standard to apply on a case by case basis. I say the comic being featured in the article, in the context of the other sources, satisfies notability, you say it doesn't. Again, it seems to come down to personal perspective. Buspar (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not "arguing from the stance that while the event is notable." This is a completely non-notable event at a local library. And yes, one could substitute several synonyms for "mentioned" to describe the triviality of the sources; one cannot however describe the sources as "Significant coverage [where] sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." As far as original research goes, the article is full of it. For example, the unattributed analysis that a particular character "is typically the most sarcastic of the group." --Dragonfiend (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep as the sources seem valid per discussion above and a Google search shows enough general interest in the strip that an article on the subject would be beneficial and useful to the readers. The list of sources can (and I am sure will) be expanded. I believe the aims of the encyclopedia would be better served with keeping and improving the article rather than deleting it. --Ubardak (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep The above reasons for keeping are sound. It clearly passes the notability guidelines for articles of its type. The only objection raised so far has been about the strength of one of three secondary sources (which still leaves it with two good ones), and as Buspar correctly points out that objection is more a matter of opinion than policy. GarryKosmos (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Which two "good" sources are those? --Dragonfiend (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep. The fact that this article or a similar article was deleted before is irrelevant. The rationale used to delete it before may have been addressed in the current article as written. Then again it may not but, unless there is some independent rationale for its deletion, this article should stay. Queerudite (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 22:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 withdrawn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary King (talk • contribs) 19:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Windeward Bound

Does not seem to be a notable ship. Gary King (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - gets over 3000 hits on Google. Has been used for recreating Matthew Flinders epic journey. Is a tall ship (pretty darn rare these days) and seems to have enough references from standard sources to make it notable. Gillyweed (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment wonder how hard the nominator is bothering to look for sources for the thirty-two articles he's nominated for deletion so far today. AfD already has nearly twice as many nominations as it would usually have by this time of day [63][64] and there's still 16 hours left in the UTC day. There is no deadline for getting bad articles deleted, and overwhelming the capacity of people who watch AfD just means that potentially good topics are going to get deleted in the rush. cab (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
keep all ships are notable, by long established practice here. There are always sources. DGG (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Sorry, I do not mean to inundate the kind people who look over AfDs (I have been heavily patrolling the Recent Changes page lately, though, and have therefore come across quite a lot of articles that I would consider are deserving of a deletion), and I would also argue that the majority of the articles that I have reported are indeed unnotable and therefore worthy of a deletion. Of the few that will be kept, my response is that I am getting used to how the AfD process works and would like to be given a chance to continue to proceed forward in this important department of the Wikipedia project. Thank you kindly. Gary King (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Gary, I think you are probably right for many of them, but the nominations are more effective if you give some more specific reason, and include a statement of where you looked to find sources for notabilty but did not succeed. You may even find in doing it that you can improve some of the articles, and dont have to nominate them.--I know I would never be able to do anywhere near this number with adequate care. Better to do a few a day, and make sure they arent notable first, and show it to us clearly. DGG (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Notable per sources and standards. —Moondyne 15:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ——Moondyne 15:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 03:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ACT Australian Cleantech Index

Does not appear to be a notable article; no references listed. Gary King (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The ACT Australian Cleantech Index will be oficially launched on March 11 2008 but is already in use. The reference in the entry provides a link to the ACT Consulting website where the index will be published and updated. This index will provide the only current measure of the growth of the Australian cleantech industry and it compares to the market performance in general. To understand how this sector is growing will be highly notable as Australia increases its investment in renewable energy, water and other cleantech sub-sectors --Obrienj (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete; no sources to assert significance. Google hasn't even heard of it: <[65]> and nothing in any media reports either: <[66]> How a stock index could be launched without any media publicity confounds the heck out of me. Pegasus «C¦T» 09:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete; this appears to be self-promotion by the founder of ACT Consulting for an index that is not notable at present. Murtoa (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage will come through following the official launch on 11 March - as will the google search come on line as the index will be publicly available on the web. I will add in references to the media coverage as it comes through. --Obrienj (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: You have just conceded the very reason why we must delete this article. We simply cannot have an article on a subject unless there are reliable sources unrelated to the subject that have written about it at this point in time. We cannot assume there will be coverage in some point of time in the future. No third-party coverage right now means no article right now. It may be appropriate in 3-4 months' time to have an article on this when there are multiple sources that have written about it; but until then, no article will have to do. Pegasus «C¦T» 12:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CORP and WP:CRYSTAL --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Per above. Twenty Years 13:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Gonzo fan2007. Non-admin closure. Icestorm815 • Talk 05:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mul-T-Move

Does not appear to be a notable company, per WP:ORG. Gary King (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also in violation of WP:Spam. Please establish a more neutral point of view; less bias.

M173627 (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The it room

non notable website Mystery12312 (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy A7 delete, so tagged. According to the article, this web site was launched around two weeks in the future. Taking a look at their site, the "high-quality streaming content" is in fact a YouTube gallery with two videos (one of which I recognize as having been created elsewhere), the "social media content" is an InvisionFree forum which is currently offline, and there are only two articles posted, both from the last few days. Zetawoof_(ζ) 12:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emil Mijares

Not a notable artist, per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The references in the article seem to be enough for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD A7 applies as well. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Lonely Death (band)

Not a notable musical group, per WP:MUSIC. Gary King (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom, unsourced. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 17:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dirty Laundry Blog

non notable website Mystery12312 (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Claim of notability is incredibly minute with no credible sources. Doc Strange (talk) 07:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete No notability proved. Alberon (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing an AfD with no !votes is a bit odd, but this fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS, and every other bit of alphabet soup you can imagine. Presumably everyone who viewed the article lost the will to live and thus didn't comment.Black Kite 23:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Untitled Faith Album

Looks like a speculated album without references. Per WP:MUSIC. Gary King (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alicia Paola Sánchez

Non-notable musician as per WP:MUSIC. Gary King (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. Google search gives 6 ghits [67]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heinrich I Heimo

Non-notable biography, per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There are assertions of notability here. The lack of sources is problematic, but it seems that the individual may well have been notable. matt91486 (talk) 06:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment For all we know, it may have been made up. The apparent father of this person is an article created by the same person that created this one, and the subject of that article has no ghits besides the Wikipedia article. Gary King (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's why I just commented instead of saying keep. But solely relying on google hits from someone from the 700s is hardly a fair judge. matt91486 (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

'weak keep' if sourced. Keep, since the source does appear to be fully adequate. See below ~~The position is certainly notable, but we do needsome kind of evidence. If its real, it will be in the relevant histories for the period.~~ DGG (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

unsure as above with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Udo I, we need to be able to verify position. Udo has some sources attesting to existence, this one has far fewer. Travellingcari (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Fails verifiability requirements. Part of a series of stub articles created by the same user about supposed nobility who lived in the Dark Ages. Use references, or at least one solid reference to satisfy verifiability, or don't create the article. Too much opportunity for hoaxes if we allow the creation of stubs about a plethora of supposed nobles from that era. Once the existence of the person is proved, then we can start debating whether the person is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. I do not see that having a name and a title automatically proves notability, because the title as translated might not have signified the same importance in that era. Edison (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- As I said to your identical comment on other articles, nobility titles were generally more significant in this time period than in the present day. matt91486 (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Since they did not speak English in the 700's the actual titles probably were not "Count" or "Baron." Medieval titles of nobility might be retroactively and inappropriately applied to some one who was the warlord of a village or whose mud hut had the most goats tethered outside. Edison (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - this geneaology seems to show his existence. Obviously this isn't a good source, but it at least challenges the accusation that it might be a hoax. matt91486 (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Reliable sources are needed to prevent supposition being enshrined as "fact" in Wikipedia, complete with succession boxes. If these people were notable in the 700's, they should be sourceable to books from respected publishers. I would exclude as sources family genealogy self published books and websites, but a website which lists its sources is a great place to steer you to the actual source, which should be verified directly (not cited here based on someone's website claiming the source exists.). Edison (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete As with Ruthard, I tried and failed to satisfy WP:V on this and failed using a variety of spellings. Going by the article the importance would be such that sources should be easier to find and many contemporaries are. --Dhartung | Talk 11:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
'Comment Edison, the medieval title comes = Count was in use in the 8th century. Warlords of villages are exactly the sort of people who became nobility, given some success at it. Given that there is evidence that he historically existed, he was notable. BBKL is a standard reference, now on the Web like many, but a reliable published source. [68] I changed my !vote to keep, after examining it. You are apparently opposing the accuracy of a standard academic reference on the basis of your own personal imaginative view of history. DGG (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment — sorry, where is he in BBKL? I can't find him either under this name or Heimrich. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I can find this person in Regine Le Jan's Famille et Pouvoir dans le monde Franc, which indexes him as Heimrich, count of the Oberrheingau, son of Cancor (aka Ruthard in German?) and Angila. Le Jan has a moderate amount to say about him, certainly enough for a modest article of 2k to 3k by the time some minimal context is added. I think there is also information of relevance in Gockel's Karolingische Königshöfe am Mittelrhein, but I do not have access to a copy of that so far as I can tell. Our man here is not a towering figure in C8th Frankish history, but there is far, far more info available on him than is needed to write a decent encyclopedia article. Delete this or not, but sooner or later we'll have an article on this man and his even less important pa. Seems like it would be a bit dim to delete this, however much it needs fixing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. WP is not limited to "towering figures." If in present days we put in people like members of state or provincial houses of representatives, or small-city mayors, or medium-sized city city councils, all as a matter of course, we should include the equivalent. this makes it very easy, actually--people below that level almost never get included in secondary historical sources for early periods. DGG (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Does de:Robertiner agree with your sources? It's got Heinrich as Heimrich, the father Ruthard as Rupert (Cancor), and grandfather Richbold as Rupert (Robert), with quite different titles than our articles claim. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This leaves the article seeming very speculative and the stated facts with questionable verifiability. Can spomeone with access to the stated reference works boil it down to sourceable facts, with the actual names as used in the reference? Edison (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - based on above comments. John Carter (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep. The German article de:Popponen identifies him as the patriarch of the House of Babenberg. He also apparently held four countships and was a notable benefactor of the Mosbach Abby. This establishes notability in my opinion. - Revolving Bugbear 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. see contrib history of creator, who is creating a large elaborate "family tree" through multiple usernames who all popped up in the last few days. Some of the creations might have some truth to them, but they are created to give credence to the links in the article which are to a hoax.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Note. See WP:ANI#elaborate scam.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
These kinds of subjects are complicated enough without hoaxes. Looking at the links above, I agree that these might as well be deleted and we start over with a clean slate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as failing WP:V. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete — at this point it's hard to say that there's anything worth keeping here since what we can check doesn't match up. — Laura Scudder ☎ 19:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
comment on name variations: Edison & laura, such spelling variations are insignificant. Remember that the original data are Latin transcriptions of German names, done by ear. this is the general way historical sources work. Yes I think Heinrich can be taken to equal Heimrich, Ruthard as Rupert; and most such people bore more than one title at different times of their lives. I think what Angus McLellan and Revolving Bugbear found makes it seem that this particular person at least is notable. Annals of Fulda was given as the indirect reference only, but it one of the best basic primary source for the subject. Now, we did in fact have an actual hoax of the sort mentioned some months back--I'm trying to find it. In this case, it seems different--the figures are real, the modern relevance to his home town is another matter. So do we throw out the real part, the part that is in sources? DGG (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Spelling variations isn't a problem. What bothers me are the lack of agreement in many titles, dates, locations, etc. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Equally normal in early medieval history. DGG (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete without prejudice to re-creation. The existence of Konrad von Tegerfelden and his part in the murder of Albert I of Germany are verifiable, but both articles are so atrociously written and ill-sourced that it seems best to start over with a tabula rasa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Choess (talk • contribs) 02:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete non verifiable ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:22,

23 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, Keep

I want say that I am Tim mann out of NY, I put up history that I have worked on for over 10 years, Mr Brewcrewer, how hids under a name, did his study in less thr 48 hr. YES i put it up in one day, i had the day off, i work for a living, I had it on paper and put it up, I have tons more to put up too. I would have loved to give you more so you could find it alot faster but brewcewer want it all down. Note that many of you if taken a little time , is finding things on it, but I thank you you took longer then 2 days to try and come to an a Fact. A hoax, No you Mr brewcrewer are, two days and he knows it all, most of you have found thing on the House,Town and Family, If i would have been given more time i would have added a lot, and i woul hope that others would too. But history ill be lost.Mr brewcrewer did not like one thin and went after it all, Jelles ha, Note He took down things on the Conaradines family members i put up, NOTE that as to just Rudolf having no kids, is wrong, on WP, there are 6 other pages that say he did, one of the was Duke of Swabia Berthold I, but he kows all the great histoy man. He took down and changet things with out one Refference and source, he did not let you see what was up till he pulled it down. Over a yera ago i went west on a trip, I stoped by and took a tour of Weyyershaw maner I saw shaw and I meet the man, He is who I said he was and it is a photo of him. Learn to take time and look things up and give it some time, you may learn something Mr brewcrwer self made history giant.

Also to note that mr. brewcrewer took down over 90% of what i put up in history, He changed took down bi's and full pages that you could not see and let you the good people of WP get only 10% of what I put up and call it a Hoax, It sounds like making people get only 10% of the story is a Hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveofhistorynut (talk • contribs) 18:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Angusmclellan. There is no hoax, but a mess of poorly researched and written articles relating to the Wetters. If the sources exist, this article can be salvaged. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

whats up Keep I must say that many of wp people have put up things they have found and it is croosed off, the person is the Hoax is the one that is covering up the history they dont want you to see, took down 90% of bios and history pages and left 7 for you to see and to try and call it all a hoax, and on top of it all to cover up the good things people want to say is very bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.244.195.83 (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC) — 4.244.195.83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was delete per G3 criteria; 0 hits on Google, a definite hoax. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cars: Halloween Short Film: Mater & The Ghost

More brilliance from Danny Daniel (talk · contribs). Zero Ghits for "Halloween Short Film" mater. JuJube (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete as pure vandalism. This article appears to be part of a pattern of hoax vandalism. See the contributions of 220.233.238.4, an IP that has been blocked twice for vandalism and removal of deletion tags. You may also want to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Buggy Drink and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Animated (1985 film), both of which I nominated before the hoax/vandalism pattern became apparent. szyslak 06:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete vandalism. Created by known vandal ISP. Total bollocks. Sole link doesn't exist Doc Strange (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Gary King (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Prent

Article is written by the subject of the article, thus an obvious WP:NPOV breach. Also, the person appears to be non-notable; per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In Response to Your Concerns (refactored layout of header, text unchanged by Fram (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

I've posted this response on three different pages, because I'm not sure which is the right one. Sorry about that.

This article is not written by Mark Prent, because I am not him. I only made the account name the same as his, because I don't plan to add or edit any other articles on Wikipedia with this account. I'm not sure how Mr. Prent does not qualify as a notable person, as his work has been featured in in many primary and secondary sources. Although there isn't much available online, he's been in several books and I'd be more than happy to cite them. Mark Prent also owns a well-known and highly respected molding and casting company, and produces technical videos. His sculptures are also regularly on display at various galleries, and have been bought for many different private collections. Other articles on Wikipedia make mention of Mark Prent, including the "Avrom Isaacs" and "Lothar Wolleh" articles.

Also, according to Wikipedia, this should not be already tagged for deletion: "If you know that it will take you a few edits to properly list references, put the template "{underconstruction}" on top of the page to signify to other editors that you are working on it, so they don't tag it for deletion yet."

As I am working on obtaining more sources, and since the article is listed as being incomplete, there should be no reason to tag it for deletion less than 2 hours after I created it.

I will continue editing the page to make it more neutral, as I agree with you on that point. Otherwise, though, I feel like the concerns you raised with the article are very vague, so it would be extremely helpful if you could clarify a bit more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markprent (talk • contribs) 08:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep if sourced. COI is not reason for deletion. Nor is failure to have NPOV. COI is reason for careful checking and editing,to make sure the information is accurate and the subject notable. Given that the subject is asserted to have appeared in multiple major exhibitions, and to have received major awards, he probably does meet the standards for creative professionals. When you make a nomination like this, explain what part of the standard is not in your opinion being met. If you cant find sources, say so. DGG (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per DGG. The article will require a major rewrite, however. freshacconcispeaktome 16:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment needs referencing and peacock prose removing, but if has had the solo exhibitions he/it claims, he would be notable. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment The "underconstruction" tag was placed on the article prior to being nominated for deletion. As the original editor has asserted that he is not the subject of the article, and he had placed the tag to indicate that more edits were forthcoming, is this AfD not perhaps a bit premature, if not bad faith? Should we speedy close as keep and let the original editor make his edits, while leaving up the other tags, per Johnbod's comments? freshacconcispeaktome 17:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per DGG. Comment: Similarly, I am not Thomas Edison. Edison (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep Extensive critical review here[69] and film documentary here[70]. Some more refs may need to be cited since just citing commercial "solo exhibitions" may not meet WP:BIO. Commercial "solo exhibitions" is something most artists do. WP:BIO sets a level higher than that, namely: "permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries". Commercial gallery solo exhibitions are not permanent by definition. The museum level exhibitions must have a record somewhere. Article needs cleanup since there is a WP:COI problem. The primary editor needs to read that guideline and try to adhere to it. The current article simply does not put forward the "gist" I get from the cited critical review (especial in the lead). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. As indicated below, the addition of reliable sources during this discussion clearly establishes the notability of the school, and so the arguments for redirection are rendered null. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 07:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oak Avenue Intermediate School

This school seems non-notable to me. It has a defender who won't even allow me to remove its bell schedule (which is unencyclopedic and a violation of WP:NOT#DIR), so I figure it would be best to bring it here instead of redirecting it to its district (which seems to be the usual treatment) and being reverted. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to the district page. This page, as of now, is extremely poor. It's nothing but a "look at my über awesome school" page. I did take off the bell schedule to see if that would make a dent on the quality of the article, but it requires much, much more work. Undeath (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. It'd be highly appreciated if you did not mock while engaging in debate. — Ian Lee (Talk) 23:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect per undeath. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect No refs to prove this is a notable middle schools. High schools have often been kept in AFDs on some notion of inherent notability, but fewer middle schools have survived AFD. Edison (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Extremely Strong Keep. There are many middle school and even elementary school articles that exist that are stubs!!! However, this article although not the best, services as fairly decent. There is no real reason to deleted this article other than the suffering quality it has when the initiator and Undeath cut out more than half of it's content without any consensus. — Ian Lee (Talk) 23:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's a goodly amount of consensus at WP:SCHOOL on what should not be in school articles. Don't you find it telling that two editors have removed the bell schedule and cited the same guideline from WP:SCHOOL while doing it? And it will not sway the argument that there are other articles in worse shape; if you look, you will see many school articles up for deletion all the time. It seems to be a neverending battle; people create an article for their local school, and they don't see that their school is not notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep School notability guidelines are still being developed. The article itself is still in the development stage and already exceeds that of hundreds of other school articles that have not been tagged for deletion. Two notable references have been added since this article was listed for deletion and others will be forth comming. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- How does it exceed the other school articles? In length? Most of the material is unencyclopedic, and I don't see where the notability is. Blast Ulna (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Current nobable references in the article:

Used as a example of Differentialed Staffing - ED042727 - Differentiated Staffing in Schools. A Review of Current Policies and Programs.

Distinguished School Award - see article

Just having a hard time understand what logic is used for selecting which articles are tagged for deletion and which ones are not; see the following:

Some examples of stubs that have been around for at least 4 months:

Robert Martin Elementary School

Butler Elementary School (Springfield, Illinois)

Eisenhower Middle School (Rockford, Illinois)

Ray Elementary School

Meadowview elementary school

Martin Elementary School (Lake in the Hills, Illinois.)

May Chesak Elementary School

Linwood Elementary School (Kansas)

It should be noted that the above 8 articles were the result a my random selection of 10 articles taken from stub categories with my selection being based solely on the article title. This is an 80% hit ratio of non-notable entries created simply by visually scanning the article names in three separate stub categories. It makes it difficult to understand just what guidelines are actually being used in the selection of articles for deletion. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Google News Archives shows quite a few articles that appear to be nontrivial about the school, going back to the late 1960s. If I have the time in the next several days, I'll try to add something from them, but if other editors can add something from multiple, independent, reliable sources that give more coverage than just trivial (brief) mentions of the school, then WP:N / WP:ORG notability requirements would be met. At this point, the closing administrator of this discussion doesn't have to look at any notability requirements but either of those. It would be helpful if footnotes could be provided for the paragraphs that don't have them. Noroton (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep and Cleanup. Let's face it, WP practice, as dictated by editors, is to make these articles. For every one that is deleted after contentious debate, ten more spring up. We should concentrate our efforts to standardizing and cleaning up the articles, rather than lengthy and pointless AfD's. I think they are a useful resource, since if one of the teachers wins the lottery or one of the students the spelling bee, or if, God forbid, something terrible happens there, users will have the info on the school at their fingertips.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Many get deleted without a whimper via prod or redirect. I see no trend of increasing numbers of school articles, and I resent the idea that we have to accept articles on non-notable topics because some people like to create them. Blast Ulna (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - as meeting WP:N by having the necessary substantial secondary sources. It has been the subject of a significant paper (ref 5) and further reporting here. Mind you, it does need a jolly large pair of scissors to be taken to it but that is an editorial matter. TerriersFan (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Noroton and TerriersFan. GoogleNews search shows it to be a long-standing school with significant, independent coverage which will pave the way to a NPOV, Verifiable article, which is the inclusion requirement. Clean-up is an editing issue not a deletion issue and editorial debates often can be resolved with a RFC. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep and Cleanup, as Wehwalt put it. I can agree this page needs a major overhaul from a fresh perspective, but it does not need to be deleted. If I can ever find the time to offer my help, I will. Thanks. Ryan (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ideas not being accepted by the scientific community is not a notability criteria of person. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 01:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Anderson (computer scientist)

His theories are not accepted by the scientific community and are just another version of NaN. Petter (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

See previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Anderson (mathematician), result: no consensus. --Salix alba (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete (my nomination) see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Anderson (mathematician) Petter (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. He appears to be a crackpot, but he's been on TV. Herostratus (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Which TV? Are we talking here of local, regional or national TV? Is this solely in the UK, or does anybody else in the world know about this person? Thanks --euyyn (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There's been enough media attention to justify keeping it. He was featured on Slashdot and elsewhere as well as mainstream media like the BBC. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

week keep some press coverage. After reading this blog post I'm beginning to see a bit of sense in what he's doing, yes transreals do largely duplicate NaN, however if your building a machine made of a large number of custom made chips it may prove easier to design the chips following the transreal scheme that having to implement the full IEEE NaN specification. --Salix alba (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's not us to judge; we must rely on secondary sources. --euyyn (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

keep meets WP:BIO. The fact that his ideas are not accepted by the scientific community is not relevant to his notability. . JoshuaZ (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep. A clear fail of WP:PROF — too little evidence that anyone takes his ideas seriously — but the popular press attention he's received is enough for WP:BIO, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion below. Regardless of whether or not the group existed, the availability of sources indicated below satisfies the notability requirements. Please see Wikipedia:HOAX#Hoaxes vs. articles about hoaxes for more information. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 07:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] René Guyon Society

As near as I can determine, the René Guyon Society is an urban legend that never actually existed. It appears that the LAPD was correct when it determined that it was the fever dream of one person, Jonathan Evan Edwards. The citation indicating 5,000 members is not a direct link to the Gale Encyclopedia of Associations, but to some web page that says that the Gale Encyclopedia of Associations credits it with 5,000 members. Whether the error is at the citing web page or actually in the Gale Encyclopedia of Associations, I don't know, but error it is; no reasonable person can believe that this entity, if it did exist, had anything like 5,000 members. How could it, and leave no footprint? How many entities with 5,000 members have a headquarters the location of which no one can exactly determine? Edwards claimed 5,000 members, and it looks like someone somewhere took him at face value.

Now, "René Guyon Society" generates a passel of Google hits, it is true. But all of these appear to actually reference the rumor of the René Guyon Society, passing on the shocking (or, to some, thrilling) legend of the society's existance -- always which seem to have no basis, except the basis common to urban legends of having heard about it "somewhere". Nowhere is there any hard information, because such information, I believe, does not exist. Possibly there should be an article about the René Guyon Society as a meme/rumor/legend, documenting how one person's scam became accepted as real. But that is not this article, and if such an article is to be written it would be better to start over from scratch. Herostratus (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The article needs better sources, which abound in Google Books, Google News Archive, and even Google Scholar. Whether it existed as purported or not is irrelevant to the question of whether it was notable, as it surely was. The number of mentions (credulous or not) in US Congressional hearings is all but sufficient by itself. --Dhartung | Talk 08:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether it existed or not is relevant for the form the article will take. Certainly the story of how a non-existent entity came to be mentioned in Congressional testimony and spread all over the web is interesting, and perhaps an example of moral panic. But this article is not that story. It is a false and misleading article, completely wrong and not verified, and needs to be destroyed and perhaps someday started over from scratch. Generally we don't flat-out delete articles on entities that are or might be notable, but in this case we should make an exception. And no the article can't be "fixed", it needs to be an entirely different article. Herostratus (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we simply modify this article? The current version wouldn't be that hard to modify simply add a few "according to X" comments and include the citations that say it in fact not real. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no X. There simply are no reliable sources about this entity, it appears. Including any reliable sources that prove that it didn't exist. If and when someone can dig them up the article could be recreated. Herostratus (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand, you made a claim above about the LAPD determining that this didn't exist. Do you have that source? Isn't that presumably a relevant RS? JoshuaZ (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the organization did not exist, and that the LAPD also believed this. But I can't prove it; I don't have a reliable source, just hearsay. Herostratus (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So you want us to delete an article that RS sources say existed but you have hearsay as not existing? That's a bit hard to take seriously. If you want to show that this didn't exist you should find a journalist willing to report on its non-existence (and presumably present whatever evidence you have for that to them). But if the non-existence isn't reliably sourced we can't do anything, and we certainly can't delete the article based on that anymore than I'd call for the deletion of George Washington even if you convinced me that his existence was a complete hoax. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

But there are no reliable sources that say it existed. Herostratus (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How about moving it in time-honoured style to Allegations of Rene Guyon Society? Relata refero (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the necessary modifications of the article in this case would be so great that it might be best to start over.21:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Several sources point to this organization's either existing or having existed, but, even if it didn't exist, its supposed existence has been reported on in multiple fora. Also, hearsay about what the LAPD thinks about the likelihood of the group's existence doesn't seem particularly probative. --SSBohio 20:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. This subject seems notable whether or not it exists or existed, as it has been reported on by reliable sources. However in an article on such a controversial subject we need to take special care about reliable sourcing. I have removed references to self-published sources from the article, and removed information which isn't sourced from the remaining references, in particular information about a named, probably living, person which is a clear breach of WP:BLP. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sun Prairie Today

Non-notable website. Being a "premier source of daily local news" for a small town is not a claim to notability per WP:WEB. Also, it's promotional: the article was created by one of the publishers. Jfire (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 11:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was consensus = Delete. I did note the idea of merging to a non existent article called Prabhupada Travel Companions. Please contact me if editors think this is viable and I will restore content to a sandbox.. --VS ^talk 10:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hari Sauri Dasa

Individual is not notable, also there are no independent reliable sources in the article. The page appears to be an advertisement for this individual's book. Does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Ism schism (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete The individual must be notable and sourced with independent reliable sources. This has not been demonstrated. Ism schism (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Hari Sauri is notable as both a spiritual leader, and western convert to Hinduism. Over 18,000 hits on Google. This article has good scope for improvement in future. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Response This article has been on Wikipedia for about 3 years. This is ample time for other sites which mimic Wikipedia to pick the article up. This number you are using, 18,000 thousand hits, is meaningless unless you show which of those 18,000 is acutally a reliable source that backs up your claims that the subject is notable. So far I only see an advertisement for his books. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ism schism - the subject matter IS notable. I don't think there are 18,000 mirror sites of this Wikipedia article entry on the web. Also from my own experience, Hari Sauri dasa is a well known individual in his field. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Gouranga, again, where are the reliable sources that establish article's notability, aside from book advertisements and "your own experience." Your experience is valuable for this article, but only if it allows you access to reliable sources. Please show these reliable sources and demomstrate how the subject is notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Wikidas has added new references in this article that still fail to meet Wikipedia's standards for Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please note that websites owned by the subject of the article are not reliable and books published by the subject must be reviewed (verified) to see if this attribute is notable. Many preachers write books, diaries, weblogs, etc. These are not Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Also, articles which mention the subject in passing are also not reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, in its present state, the article still fails to satisfy Wikipedia standards for notability of people. Ism schism (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal Instead of deletion I would support merging parts of this article into a new article 'Prabhupada Travel Companions' along with other travel servants of Prabhupada who are not notable otherwise.Wikidas (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, this might be a better solution. I wonder what other editor think. Any thoughts anybody? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the logic in this. An article entitled Travel Companions doesn't sound like a relevant encyclopedic subject matter. Hari Sauri is notable enough as a preacher and religious leader, and western convert to Hinduism. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have an open mind, but how do we know that? Do we have any readership statistics on his book, for example? Relata refero (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Hari Sauri Dasa is NOT a member of the Governing Body Commission. Please see, [71]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It also says that in his article. He held a GBC post until 1984. Many current members of the GBC will not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and some non-GBC members will be, because they are famous as writers, speakers, or religious leaders. Personally I'd still say that a simple article is appropriate in this instance. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 03:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Searching for Dragons

This seems to be redundant to this. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect to Enchanted Forest Chronicles#Searching for Dragons. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Too large to merge. Needs expansion and wikification. --Oldak Quill 01:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect per Brewcrewer. The plot summary is excessive and should mostly be removed, so the length is not a problem. Jfire (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I would think it would be better to open a merge discussion for all four articles for the series at once, so that they can be dealt with in the same manner. (The condition of all five articls is a bit of a shame, because they're popular enough that very good articles could be written on them.) —Quasirandom (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Please keep separate articles and trim the main article. I did this once before but another editor reverted it, saying he liked the big single article better, and I did not want to start an edit war. I would be happy to wikify and clean up the separate articles, as long as there is general consensus to shorten the Enchanted Forest Chronicles article. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment It looks like the creator of the article Pegship, did something to keep this article (proposing). The articles he created for copied word for word from Enchanted Forest Chronicles, and on February 10, he decided he would go ahead and remove it from the main article. See this.I'm proposing he/she did this so he can keep this article and the other four. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I cleaned them up all right, hoping that doing so in good faith would be a positive move toward keeping them. Back in 2006 I found the Enchanted Forest Chronicles in its original bulky state and split off three of the four novels for their own articles, using the existing text to create them. Another user restored the longer Enchanted Forest Chronicles text (see here), without explanation (see message on my talk page here), and I left it alone in order to avoid confrontation. Hope we keep it. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment what this AfD needs is more discussion about the article and less (eg. none) about the editors and speculation about their motivation. What the he;; shall we do with this article?!? Discuss. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge obvious choice. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
'Merge, as per User:Jfire - fchd (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep separate, as the standard for book series is to have separate articles for each book and, optionally, an article about the entire series. Her Pegship (tis herself) 02:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was consensus = Keep. --VS ^talk 10:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Professional Congress Organiser

I can find no evidence of notability for this type of company (nor with an "S"). People in it may be notable, but the company definition is little more than a dicdef with some OR. I don't see any evidence of encyclopedic content. Travellingcari (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - trying Googling the term or looking up some of the references. It's well established and lies at the heart of a multi-billion dollar global industry. andy (talk) 07:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment This would probably work better if it didn't use such specific jargon. The same job seems to be known by different names in different places, e.g. meeting organizer, conference professional, etc. --Dhartung | Talk 08:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep and discuss the right title on the talk page., per Dhartung. DGG (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible merge to [Meeting and convention planner]] if they're indeed the same thing. To comment 1, I did google it and nothing encyclopedic came up in the slightest. I'm not sure this should be a standalone if it's a region specific name for the same thing. Travellingcari (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Googling both the US and UK spellings gives over 18,000 hits. "PCO + conference" (using the common acronym) gets 733,000 hits. What do you mean about not finding anything "encyclopedic" - what were you expecting? These hits all relate to the use of professionals for a very defined business activity. It's no different from any other business activity.

Meeting and convention planner is a related business but by no means the same. andy (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge into main article, no independent notability. Relata refero (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge into which main article? Meeting and convention planner is a related but different line of business. andy (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sufficiently different, in my opinion. Relata refero (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's different, then why is MPI listed as an professional organization on Professional_Congress_Organiser? I don't think they're sufficiently different and ghits!=notability in an encyclopedia. Wiki isn't a directory of career options and it's not a list of everything out there? What's notable about this type of work? I still don't see it hence I haven't redacted my nom. Travellingcari (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's a job. WP has plenty of articles on jobs, some of them pretty obscure (for example Rat-catcher). This one is a job which is central to a huge global industry. Maybe the article isn't perfect but that's not a reason for deletion. andy (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

and [[WP:OTHERSTUFF|but we have other articles] isn't a good reason to keep either. Before I change my nom, I'd like to see something that passes WP:N. This isn't Field of Dreams If you build it, they will come. It needs to pass WP:N Travellingcari (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete It's not a "job", it's another pseudo-generic article about a specific pseudo association with 80 members about 76 Google hits that include no mention in any trade or mainstream or respected industry trade publications. The article was created around the description of this specific organization that couldn't pass notability on its own. See Association management company for another good example. And if there was a way some PR firm could make money (i.e. fees, memberships, etc.) off killing rats, then we'd be here discussing an article on Certified Professional Vermin Elimination Organizers. Flowanda | Talk 06:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tweaked the article and added some stats. PCOs handle about a third of the UK's £7 billion conference market. There's nothing pseudo about the article. andy (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clearly delete & thanks to all the socks for some interesting (and somewhat unintelligible drooling).. --VS ^talk 10:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vera Gafron

This person is by no means a well-known German model. A Google search yields no relevant results other than self-promotion. Her entry on German Wikipedia has been suggested for deletion as well. Heikoh (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Delete: Per nom. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 04:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Damn-does-that-mean-the-picture-goes-too delete. Relata refero (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

not delete:Keep means simply that the user thinks the article should not be deleted. He or she may state reasons or simply leave it at this statement. Danger! Oh what for denunciation. Heikoh is only registered to delete Vera Gafron. I know, Heikoh started a approach often to Vera Gafron. Don`t delete Vera Gafron! She is public! Have a look at entry. Joyce80 (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)— Joyce80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

not delete:It`s real, goodness me! Heikoh has registered for deletion. Vera Gafron is public and has good references! She`s great! It`s funny here! A german freak leads war, against a german beauty! Crazy Germany!— 85.179.9.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

not delete:Wikipedia is an informationportal and what´s an encyclopedia without interesting persons and Miss Gafron is very interesting and exceptionally —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.178.128 (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP:not delete, because: Vera Gafron is very famous for her very long legs and body high! She is a great model and very famous in the internationel scene!~~User:Kate/Kate (talk)~~ 19:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC) this comment is actually from Mietze katz (talk · contribs)

KEEP: I know this model from Paris, she´s great. Not delete! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.193.193.27 (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment There may be something here, but I can't tell as none of the potential sources are in English. — Scientizzle 17:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP: not delete, see hier [72] She is a great model with longest leggs and she works in Paris --87.162.56.154 (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)— 87.162.56.154 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —— Scientizzle 16:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Close as delete Ignore all the sock puppeting, and we have a consensus. References are lacking. The German interwiki link is dead; apparently they deleted their copy of the article. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment such a strange AfD with all the dirty socks and nominator who has only made 3 edits (all to list this afd) since May 2007. Anyway, I searched for information on Vera Gafron, and I found that she was/is the subject of a controversy within her field of modeling in Germany. As such, I believe that there must be reliable sources, but they are likley in German. I used google translator to get the gist of this source, (google translation). See the section titled "die Lüge von den längsten Beinen" (the lie of the longest legs). I don't know how notable that is, or how reliable the source is. It seems to me to be a reliable source, only in that it contains balanced critical content of the German modeling agency industry. A search of google pictures (don't ask why!) shows many pictures that are evidently in various magazines, some showing significant coverage (8 page photoshoot, for example). One showing Miss Berlin 2006, one showing cover article for some magaine. She is a model for Redken, and others... seems very much like the typical stuff for supermodels. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- More on above, using google translation of 1 source provided by Scientizzle's search. Stern Magazine (google translation). I don't have time to do all of them, but I am now leaning to Keep. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per lack of sufficient coverage by reliable sources. The fist one mentioned above by Jerry is not reliable since the site is that of another model (Nadin Haensch), the second (Stern) is okay, but just tells us that she was one of three winners to win a local beauty contest and didn't seem to happy about having to share it, and I didn't find a better source. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 04:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quarren Isolation League

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Quarren Isolation League

Articles for deletion/Quarren Isolation League (2nd nomination)

This one is interesting, and probably a slick way exists to deal with this that I don't know about. I came across this article because it was sitting by its lonesome in Category:Pages on votes for deletion. What I can piece together is that this article was nominated for VfD on March 20, 2005. The result was merge to Minor Star Wars organisations and then on to a succession of deleted redirects over the next few months, ending with Confederacy of Independent Systems which was deleted on January 29 of this year per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confederacy of Independent Systems. However, before that could happen, 83.53.254.94 restored the text from March 20, 2005 (with old school deletion template and all), so it was probably missed when the admin was deleting the breadcrumbs from Confederacy of Independent Systems. This is technically procedural on my part, though I would say that this article has probably run out of second chances and redirects and should be deleted. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Impressive legwork. Jfire (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete as unref'd fiction, but note that Espanol wiki has an article, and there are a few incoming links. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted and salted as recreated non-notable spam (WP:CSD#G8 WP:CSD#A7 WP:CSD#G11). Has been deleted 5 times previously as well as obvious unanimous support for del/salt here. JERRY ^talk _contribs 12:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Young Son™

Disputed speedy. I believe this doesn't meet WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:N (entirely localized interest and references), WP:RS (and I'm made nervous by the idea that the TM symbol may violate WP:COPYRIGHT); I brought it here for the community's opinion for a more long-lasting solution. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete and salt. 4 times previously deleted at Young Son (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) as WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11, and the last time it was salted. This use of the ™ symbol is an obvious attempt to override the protection. The symbol is used nowhere in the article. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for pointing this out; that's another reason that I wanted to solve this situation once and for all with an AfD process. Accounting4Taste:talk 06:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Even though this guy for sure exists, it fails to show notability (WP:N). Even one of the so called "references" states: "He is new to the scene". It might have potential as a good article, however, wikipedia is not a cristal ball (WP:NOT) and therefore this article shouldn't be here until the guy reaches the big media several times. -- Loukinho (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Recreation of Deleted Material. Also deletable per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:COI, A7 and G11. Also sprinkle some salt. Doc Strange (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per Jerry. Jfire (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete and Salt as above. Alberon (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. The work on the article since the AfD nom was minimal and did not address the concerns listed here. — Scientizzle 16:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy Gene Morrison

Non-notable musician. No claims of notability. My speedy tag was removed. His bio doesn't really show much notability. Corvus cornix_talk 04:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete: I see no claim of notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 04:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Nothing notable indicated in article or in searches beyond an NPR review...if he's worked with other notable musicians or been profiled in publications that would help establish notability, it's not easily accessible online. Flowanda | Talk 10:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A notable musician indeed TIm is notable as you will see as the article grows...thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.55.120 (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion will close on February 24, so let's hope you come up with some proof of notability beyond what's in the bio I linked, before then. Corvus cornix_talk 00:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 04:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Lee Jones

A disputed prod; doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians, having not been elected and with no other reasonable claims to notability. Also the article has apparently been edited by its subject (see the article's talk page). Accounting4Taste:talk 03:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete poorly sourced article about a minor candidate who has little to no chance of being elected. The article is promotional and the subject clearly does not meet relevant notability standards, per Accounting4Taste. Gwernol 04:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, given lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I suspect that he'd meet WP:N if he won the nomination - and he certainly would if he won the election - but I don't see it yet. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete what they said. Pairadox (talk) 08:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice against recreation if he should actually win the nomination. And if he doesn't, a one-line description in California's 12th congressional district special election, 2008 is all he'll need or merit. Bearcat (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was I think it is safe to call this one. The consensus here thus far is to keep the article. There have been no arguments to delete, it appears unlikely there will be any such arguement. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IOND University

The subject of this article via OTRS has requested deletion. This should not be construed as an otrs action however, but a courtesy nomination for community discussion. Personally, on my own, I don't really see much notability here. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed existence of OTRS ticket: 2008021910001865, see also 2008021410003443. As NonvocalScream says, this fact is only as persuasive as editorial consensus determines it to be. Daniel (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way for us to see the reasons for the request? I doubt most people have access to the OTRS. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not really needed here, I just thought it would be ok to include what I did, but I would not be comfortable including much more. This is not an otrs action, and there were not really any reasons inside the ticket other than what I can say here. I do however encourage the subject to comment here, if he or she would like to remark. NonvocalScream (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I see no reason for deletion. Passes the Google test. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, "google test"? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLE ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. References given, plenty of online sources, many referring to the upcoming court case, which together with the definition of the University as a diploma mill, is presumably the reason for the OTRS ticket. Not immensely notable in the great scheme of things, but certainly not NN. Black Kite 03:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment 20k hits on their Japanese name イオンド大学 [73]; haven't sorted through them yet to look for reliable sources. The jawiki article was the subject of a very long AfD debate (see also the article talk page) and has since been restubbed and locked due to an edit war; but the version before the edit war was quite well-sourced [74]. I also note with amusement their Japanese Uncyclopedia page: [75] cab (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep as there are plenty of reliable, third-party sources for any negative claims made in the article. I see no policy-based (or other) reason to remove it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep as well-sourced article. --DAJF (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Even in Japan, where there seem to be an awful lot of them, universities seem to have at least some notability. Thus something representing itself as a university in Japan for any extended period (I mean, not as a joke or similar) would seem either to be notable or to be a notable misrepresentation. This example seems to have got some attention and some citable sources. -- Hoary (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment See the following in the Japanese Wikipedia:

イオンド大学 Article on IOND
Wikipedia:削除依頼/イオンド大学 20070329 Articles for Deletion discussion on IOND
Wikipedia:削除依頼/イオンド大学 20070329/抗議通知 Letter of protest from IOND regarding AfD discussion
Wikipedia:削除依頼/イオンド大学 20070329/メール Messages from IOND regarding AfD discussion

Fg2 (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

could you summarize the discussion there for us? DGG (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For starters, the article. It presently has three sentences. The first describes it as a registered company; the second details the acronym and explains it in Japanese; the third states that it has schools in Japan and Hawaii.

Next, the Articles for Deletion discussion. The decision was Keep, and unless I miscounted that was based on 21 favoring keep, 2 favoring delete. Despite the outcome, the article at present bears little resemblance to the article on March 28, 2007 (the day before the AfD) as this difference shows.

If time permits, I'll summarize #3 and #4 tomorrow or soon afterwards. Fg2 (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The webpage Wikipedia and IOND University summarizes some past actions on the Japanese Wikipedia. The English-language website for IOND University is currently displaying a moving banner that presents a series of allegations regarding the owner of that webpage, for example that he is "notoriously discriminatory in educational backgrounds." --Orlady (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment IOND's legal threats are hollow, so the Wikipedia Community and the Foundation need not mind it. Because of my edits on jawiki, IOND sent me two threatening mails (one was e-mail, and another was snail mail), and published my name as one of criminals[76][77], but nothing further happened. --NobuoSakiyama (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Wow. Those two pages lead me to believe that "university" is run by a bunch of idiots who spend too much of their time trying to point fingers at other people rather than doing anything productive. Some of the accusations on the Japanese page are really rude. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Joe, how could you dare suggest idiocy in an institution that includes a ground (or wind?) breaking school such as this? -- Hoary (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
      - But there's an article on the subject, so it must be valid. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was partial merge to Australian Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists with most of the content simply being removed. This is a reasonable compromise. Non-admin closure to help with extraordinary backlog. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Australia Youth Conference

Non-notable religious conference. Searches return only primary sources. Jfire (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - even though its not that notable it deserves an article --B.C ^{say what ?} 01:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- say what?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  - This is an encyclopedia , right ? --B.C ^{say what ?} 01:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Yes, but it's not an indiscriminate collection of info. We don't need pages on everything. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
      - This isnt completely useless you know. Its a religious conference someone might want to know about--B.C ^{say what ?} 01:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        It's not like this is the only place they can turn to. We do have notability guidelines, and this conference seems to fail them; therefore, it should be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete does not meet WP:N. --Nick Dowling (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Australian Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Paul foord (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete I contemplated AfD the other day, no evidence that it's any more notable than any other of the bazillion conferences all over the world. Travellingcari (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect per User:Paul foord.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Generation of Youth for Christ, if deemed not notable. GYC is like the "parent" body. It is in the United States, and the inspiration for this Australian equivalent. It is better placed on that page, and would deserve more space there (WP:DUE) than on the Australian Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists article. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete This isn't an information service Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 12:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable conference. —Moondyne click here! 11:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep - but the title probably ought to be changed to something like Australia Youth Conference (Seventh Day Adventist) as other denominations or movements may have similar events. More needs to be said of the numbers attending and what sort of people they are, before notability can really be regarded as well established. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete This appears to be a non notable conference. --Stormbay (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge to an appropriate larger scope article - there are items that could be retained Satu Suro 10:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete This looks like a publicity page. I don't see anything to suggest it is encyclopedic material. Dgf32 (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Maybe list the conference on the page of the organizing group, or on a list of "Religious Conferences in Australia", but not a whole article by itself until someone finds verifiable third-party accounts of the conference and its impact on the world. mordel (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of retired professional American football quarterbacks

Listcruft. Wikipedia is not a directory. We have categories for things like this. Corvus cornix_talk 04:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep and improve Do it right, give some information about team(s) and dates, and it will be more than a category.DGG (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- In what way? Corvus cornix_talk 04:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Check out List of Chicago Blackhawks players. This article could be cleaned up to look like that. Much better for quick research than a category. Zagalejo^^^ 05:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete All American football quarterbacks will eventually qualify for this list so it's not needed, especially as there's a Category:American football quarterbacks which does everyhing that this list does, but better. A List of American football quarterbacks like the one DGG identifies might be a good idea, but this isn't it. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Nick Dowling. It's not like retirement is a notable status that is granted on a select number of number of QBs; inevitably all quarterbacks will retire (yes, including Brett Favre ;) and this list will end up being too large to be managable. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete This is the classic "indiscrminate list" -- one that provides nothing but a bunch of blue-links and no information to discriminate between one item on the list and the next. Even if there was information, what's the point? Do we need a list of NFL quarterbacks who are between the categories of "active" and "deceased"? Mandsford (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep This is needed because the red linked players do not have articles and instead of having the List of retired professional American football players this would make it shorter. --Phbasketball6 (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep There is no need to delete this article, for one thing why after a year and a half of existance would it be deleted now? Secondly it is great way to see most of the quarterbacks who have played in the NFL, no way should this be deleted.--Yankees10 16:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete– every player retires at one point in his career. This list can potentially grow infinite. It will become difficult to maintain. Ksy92003(talk) 19:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't seriously think this will ever be too large to maintain. As long as we limit ourselves to players from the top leagues, it could be done, with some patience. All the information is easily available in books and websites. (Although I am starting to agree that there's little value in having separate lists for active and retired QBs. A List of American football quarterbacks would probably be good enough.) Zagalejo^^^ 19:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If you condense active and retired players into one single list, then that's just a potentially infinite list even more so. Ksy92003(talk) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Many lists are "potentially infinite". The List of Presidents of the United States will grow as long as the US remains a country. But it really wouldn't be that difficult to compile a complete list of every person who's played to this point. It wouldn't take much skill at all; just patience. Zagalejo^^^ 21:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a lot less than "infinite" and a lot more than "42" (the number of Presidents of the United States). There are literally thousands of retired NFL players, and the name of the list indicates that it's not confined to NFL quarterbacks. To me it, it looks like the list is a mere shadow of [Category:American football quarterbacks] which has 1,000+ names, compared to perhaps 200 on this particular list. I suppose one could copy all the names on to this list, but what would be the point? Mandsford (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between people who played quarterback in high school and professional quarterbacks. This list has more names of professional quarterbacks than the category, because the category does not have the names of the former quarterbacks who do not have articles. Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Also the category have names of people who played quarterback in either just high school or high school and college but never played professionally. --Phbasketball6 (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In scanning over those names, you'll have to concede that the vast majority of them have played pro ball. Mandsford (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete and list the rest of these retired position players on AFD as well. The list is fairly unmaintable, (not as much as List of retired professional American football players, which should be in AFD, but still), and serves better as a category, if at all. As for the redlinks comment, we have, or should have a list of all the players who played on a certain team, and that can be settled there, not in a list of retired xxx. Secret ^account 15:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- How would it serve better at a category? The Transhumanist 20:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Note I said "if at all", I don't see the use of either a category or a list of this, all players retire at some point, too vauge of a list for a navigation aid. Secretalt (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep per WP:CLS - if a category of this topic isn't listcruft, then the topic isn't listcruft here either. Having a category for something is not a valid argument for deleting a list. Also keep in mind that lists have the potential for being enhanced with features that categories don't have. A rudimentary list is a necessary starting point for enhanced lists to be built from. If you delete them, you waste the resource, and you disrupt the possibility for collaboration on the topic by listbuilders. By the way, I'm a listbuilder. I hardly ever work on categories. I've built and developed hundreds of lists, the vast majority of which duplicate categories. By pushing categories over lists, you are basically telling me and others like me that our list work is worthless. But there are very good reasons why we construct lists. Lists are much easier to work with than categories - I can build a list in a fraction of the time it takes to build a similar category. The data in lists can be utilized and differentiated much easier than the data in categories (cutting and pasting links from categories is problematic, because you can't access the wikitext directly and because categories are only displayed 200 links at a time). Lists are faster and easier to navigate and browse, because more items can be displayed in single list, and because lists can be scrolled through while categories cannot. Being articles, lists are part of the encyclopedia itself, and their contents are searchable (by Wikipedia's search box, Google, etc.) - this is a major advantage over categories and a real boost to navigation (it makes searching and browsing synergistic) and makes it easier for readers to explore the encyclopedia. The Transhumanist 20:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anybody here means to say that your work is "worthless" or a waste of time. Of course, we greatly appreciate all contributions and the time and effort everybody makes into improving Wikipedia. But putting the "we have categories for this" argument aside, I'm not sure that the theme of the list is truly significant, anyway. I mean every single quarterback retires at some point of his career (as somebody said earlier, yes, even Brett Favre must hang it up eventually) so there really isn't anything "special" about the list that differentiates it from List of active professional American football quarterbacks because they'll just have to transfer from list to list. Seems pretty pointless to me. I think it could be considered as indiscriminate information. Ksy92003(talk) 21:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

- Note I don't agree with a category nither. Secretalt (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ksy, notability is permanent (Wikipedia covers notable things from throughout all of history). WP:LISTS specifies that navigation is one of the main purposes of lists, and this list helps navigate articles on football players. The various lists are divided by topic rather intelligently. A comprehensive list of (notable) football players past and present would be rather large, and so it's natural to split it up into separate lists. The Transhumanist 03:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the players in the list are notable and will always be notable per the WP:NFL notability guidelines. But just because a select group of players are notable doesn't mean that a list of those players is truly significant. For example, Gary DiSarcina and Orlando Cabrera are both shortstops that played with the California Angels/Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (I use a baseball scenario because I know much more about baseball than football) and are notable per the WP:MLB notability guidelines (whatever they are; I just know they are). But that doesn't mean that it's necessary to have a (pardon my WP:BEANS violations) List of retired Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim shortstops (for DiSarcina; yes, "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" in that title was intentional) or List of former Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim shortstops (for Cabrera). In this case, I feel that the players in the list are notable, but the way in which they are organized is considered an indiscriminate collection of information. Ksy92003(talk) 06:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete: It is a redundant subset of Category:American_football_quarterbacks. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 04:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Infoboxify Why not add a line to the infobox; Year of retirement? This would allow interested editors to put the information where it most matters; on the players' pages. Otherwise Delete. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete This is absolutely ridiculous. This is akin to creating an article such as List of National Football League players who have died. Every player who played the position of quarterback will eventually retire; therefore, this article is completely useless and redundant with Category:American football quarterbacks. Skudrafan1 (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Retired status is not an interesting attribute of these players. (In fact retirement status is not an intersting attribute of most professions.) Just as there would be no point in listing them separately for living or dead, this serves no purpose. The list is also poor constructed, completely lacking in useful annotation (birth/death dates, career dates, teams played for) making it no better (and in fact worse) than a category. It's surprising that a list of retired anything wouldn't give the years the careers started and ended. Quale (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Retired players could be added to a category. This makes as little sense as "List of dead American football players." Edison (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Quale. This is not an interesting attribute, and it just isn't a good list to begin with. The example for politicians is that there is a general category, and current office-holders are broken out into subcats. That's the way this should work. --Dhartung | Talk 11:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, as per at least the last 4 delete !votes. - fchd (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete -- Would eventually include everyone who ever played the position of quarterback, as every quarterback retires if he doesn't die first. Mattisse 14:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - the main merit of articles such as this is identify articles that ought to be written (by red links). There are several in this list. If they are notable enough to warrnat having articles, the keep it; if not delete it. A list of American Presidents (without more) would not have that use, since all have articles, but it could give their dates in office and of death, thus providing an answer to the question of who was president in (say) 1854. No vote I do not even know what the sport's rules are. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the issue about the article has to do necessarily with the way that it's formatted. I think the primary issue is whether or not the specific collection of players (retired quarterbacks) is indiscriminate information. Ksy92003 (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Satsui no Hadou

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Satsui no Hadou

Articles for deletion/Satsui no Hadou (2nd nomination)

Written in a in-universe stile, fails WP:NOT#PLOT.
Most of the info in this article is from Japanese books and not from the games, which makes it pretty much impossible to rewrite this article in a real world perspective.
I've read the comments in the previous AfD and noticed that most users "voting" for keep gave some pretty poor excuses for their "keeps" (or not saying why). Please don't do that.
This article has content that is not suitable for an encyclopedia - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 22:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per my vote in the last AfD (as Danny Lilithborne). JuJube (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge Into one of the Street Fighter articles otherwise delete.--Sin Harvest (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete pretty crufty. I'm not optimistic that you could find a reference that demonstrates that this is notable in the real world. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
Merge I an inclusionist, but I have to admit this article could be written less in-universe and be sourced. If Japanese books are the source of this information, they should be noted. I am open to changing my vote if some sources were found. Ursasapien (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge This is hopelessly in-universe in style and lacks any refs to show notability. Edison (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, no reliable sources. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MonaVie

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/MonaVie

Articles for deletion/MonaVie (2nd nomination)

Previously deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MonaVie, this is a different article and is not blatant spam as the old one was, but it still lacks, to my view, credible evidence of non-trivial independent coverage in reliable sources. What sources we have are anything but neutral, in the main. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep Here TOO. I dont see a problem with keeping the article.. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.14.195 (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete -- I don't have much to add to what Guy's already written. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep. Perhaps "notorious" is a better term than "notable" to describe this company, but it has surely received masses of coverage. It scores one tenth the Google hits of Amway but it is still a sizeable number. The fact that the article will be a battleground, is no reason for deleting it. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Now it's nominated for deletion? I find it funny that it has been up for the past few days with no problem but once the title was simplified from monavie (multi-level marketing) to monavie, the discussions breaks loose. Whereas the past stubs were seemingly deleted because for spam, it seems like this article was first made to criticize it. However with the efforts of the community, more information on the company is released. According to the information gathered here, the annual revenue is higher than other notable MLM companies such as Xango, USANA etc. Sales like that can be interpreted a number of ways, one being the the amount of exposure it has. It is a notable example of a successful binary plan just as Amway and Tupperware are good example of the unilevel type of MLM. With that said, time will tell if this company will keep it's notability as other functional beverages such as Tahitian Noni and Xango or if it will fade away as just another company. Holannakata (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC) — Holannakata (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That would be because MonaVie was salted, so the new title was not spotted to start with. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Not notable enough. The only significance this company holds is the annual revenue and there are other companies that don't have articles with equivalent or higher revenue. The company is young. There is no significant media coverage. There is no notable controversy that escalated up to the legal realm. According to the income disclosure issued out based on July 2007 statistics, there was only 25,451 "active" distributors which is relatively small. As a matter of fact I was surprised to find this article because I place a search every so often. As stated in the article, the company does not make health benefit claims diminishing the chance on expanding on that issue. Well I had a fun weekend editing the article. Holannakata (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Squeaks by with two notable news mentions (CNN and Reuters). As long as article is monitored for spam closely, this particular MLM is notable enough. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep I created this article because of the fact that it is impossible to find a neutral and informative source of information about the company. I believe it is notable because it is a large company that makes its money through grassroots recruitment (pyramid scheme, binary, whatever you want to call it). I have witnessed Monavie members engaging in highly questionable sales tactics (entrapment, promises it will cure every disease known to man, promises you will become a millionaire, etc...) and I think allowing this article to exist will let potential participants research the situation before they get involved. When I created the article I was very careful to be completely neutral. All of the "controversial" elements have been added by subsequent editors. Ideally this article will remain so that both sides can present their evidence and the public can be more informed.Ulcer boy (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That is very honorable of you to make an article for that purpose. I was looking at the history of the pages and noticed how it started and it seemed after an anonymous person from Massachusets added some personal criticism on income and health claims (sames concerns that you had with distributors). My changes wanted to reflect the companies views rather than problems that came up due to the way distributors misrepresented the company and product. 75.93.116.66 (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Keep because no neutral sources exist" is functionally equivalent to delete under Wikipeia policy. Just so you know. Guy (Help!) 00:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep. CNN and Reuters articles suggest notability. I'd like to see more coverage though, particularly some that is clearly focused on the company, rather than on açai. Jfire (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
~~Very Week Keep~~Strong Keep Squeezes by with two notable news mentions ~~but yet an article just about their revenues isn't that important~~ What am I saying, sorry I was talking on the phone and I wrote this by accident. My apologies.Warrior4321^talkContribs 22:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I don't want to sound one sided on this but I drink it I belive in it becausee it has done things for me I don't have a lot of medical knowledge on this it just works. I breath better, I feal better, I sleep better. thats my proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.138.87 (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to Great Falls, Montana--JForget 15:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Great Falls Police Department

Notability especially per WP:LOCAL. There doesn't appear to be much coverage outside the regional area to make the PD notable. Appears to be a somewhat recent consensus as occured with this recent AfD Travellingcari (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete not really a change in consensus--just that we are seeing more such articles. DGG (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

oddly enough, that line of logic tends to point out that consensus is changing. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

*possibly, but not in the case of these two articles, neither of these were newly created. I found them when clearing the backlog Travellingcari (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - WP:Local is only an Essay, not a Guideline (besides, it deals with Artilces about places, not Police Dept's). Coverage in any WP:RS is stil coverage in a WP:RS no matter where it is located. 1 previous AfD does not mean a consensus has been reached on an entire topic, and smacks of Other stuff does not exist, so why should this. I see no valid reason to delete based upon this Nomination request. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC
- Comment and you're entitled to your opinion. I've seen it as consensus and precedent and until AfDs start to swing the other way, I'll nominate as I do not believe any of these small town ones are encyclopedic. Travellingcari (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  - And I would hope you continue to weed out the bad articles. All I ask is that you not base your Nomination Statements upon the "Local clause" of WP:N since such a clause does not exist. If the subject of an Article has been mentioned in a newspaper or other WP:RS, no matter that WP:RS's physical location, that is still a WP:RS. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    - Fair enough, but is the local newspaper, where by far the only place these small PDs are located independent of the source? None that I've proposed for deletion have any coverage outside their immediate metro area, and a fair few don't even have that. The vast majority include articles, "Meeting X to be held at the PD" "Officer X started his career at the PD" Nothing including reliable, notable coverage of the PD itself. Maybe I wasn't clear in the past but I still see absolutely nothing notable about these two or Rockland Paramedic Services, which was the intial one we disagreed about. Travellingcari (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      - I have yet to see a newspaper owned by a police service, so yes they are independant of the source. Trying to form yourown precedent by refering to previous AfD's is pointless as, anything that can be proven by previous AfD's, can also be disprooven by previous AfD's, so I will not accept that as being relevent to anything and will always state as such. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I'm not convinced that this police department is not notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per DGG; non-notable small town police department. Jfire (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, an unremarkable police organisation. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 12:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC).
Keep if more verifiable information can be added. Otherwise merge and redirect to Great Falls, Montana. — CharlotteWebb 12:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CharlotteWebb 12:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to Great Falls, Montana. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - NN even for section in Great Falls, Montana article. Nothing in the article recognizes it's notability, and it is sourced entirely from the town's own website. Great! That information is already on the web; it does not need to be on Wikipedia, too. --BizMgr (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK, lets delete all of the articles only sourced from the web. How much is left? Vegaswikian (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment I don't disagree with your first statement that you're not convinced it isn't notable (although I haven't found any evidence that it is and recent AfDs have said they're not. WP:CORP even says "## Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found.", however I think your above comment is stretching it a little. There's a huge difference between 'sourced entirely from the town's own website' and using online independent sources to verify why Subject X is notable. Travellingcari (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    - There is absolutely no difference. A RS is still as RS, no matter where the source is located. Be it here, there or from Japan. Your diminishing the validity of a source based solely on its location, nothing more. If you wish us to ignore a source of information, give a valid reason. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
      - Have you read the article? Every single source in this 'article' is the city's own website. There is *no way* that's independent by any stretch of the imagination and as I said above the guideline WP:CORP says, Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. The city's own website is not independent, therefor it fails sourcing. To date I have found no independent evidence which is why my delete stands. As we've discussed, I understand and appreciate what you're trying to do but in this case, I think you're mistaken. If you have an issue with the guidelines, then it's an issue to discuss with guideline revision but this article as it stands does not pass WP:CORP as it exists. If the links to the city's own site weren't 404s (seen that?) I'd bet this was probably a copy/vio direct paste of the city's own website. I've read what you both said -- this article still doesn't pass. Travellingcari (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        Ok, let me get this right, as you have claimed this similar argument in several AfD's. Your contending that the Source is not independant because the city/municipality/state owns the Article topic in question? Does that mean then that we cannot use .gov websites as a Source of information in the USA Article? Browsing the Refs there, shows that 40 of the first 104 is from a .gov, are these all worthless? Should we remove them? No, because they do provide a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (WP:RS). And, since we are more concerned with verifiability, not truth (WP:V), I would consider them an excellent source. If you can proove that, in this case, the G.F. Police Department writes the websites in question, then my argument would have a gaping hole, but thats not likely. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
        
        I agree that gov sites can be used for citation. I disagree that local gov sites like this can solely evidence notability. This in the same way that I would distrust a Washington Post article about itself as a sole source for an article. In the same way that WP:Bias talks about personal notability (that if you are famous, somebody else will write about you), I believe if this Police Dept were notable, it would have source beyond its own municipal funder. Additionally, as previously noted, even if the we allowed all citation from the town's website, that has nothing to do with the AfD at hand, which is the GENERAL notability guideline, which states notability should be beyond a local scope. That level of evidenture has failed to be achieved. --BizMgr (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - we don't have a notability guideline for local governments and agencies, do we? They're either going to be de facto notable or de facto not notable. Any police department in any city of any size is going to sail through the general notability guidelines simply because it will have lots and lots of articles written about it in reliable secondary independent sources. In about 15 seconds I found this one, for example[78]. The exercise of finding fifty or a hundred more seems pointless. Until and unless we have a systematic way of dealing with this question I don't think we should be deleting local government articles on a piecemeal basis.Wikidemo (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment the ones that have been deleted so far (Rockland Paramedic Services and Gatlinburg Police Department off the top of my head, although I think there was another) have been deleted because they failed WP:ORG. WP:ORG doesn't make a distinction for government or not but WP: CORP says "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found.". Can anyone argue that this police department isn't local in scope? There's nothing notable about its work, it's sourced entirely from the PD's own website which fails independence, no matter what Exit says above. The town is automatically notable per precedent but the PD? What's next? The building department? I stand by what's been said on this and other AfDs by me and others, if it's notable it should be included. I don't see it meeting WP:N Travellingcari (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete: Just your average police dept. Nothing remarkable about it. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 03:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:ORG / WP:N. Find multiple, reliable, independent sources that give substantial coverage to the subject and my vote will change. Even find one. That's the way the guideline works, and we shouldn't change it for articles on local government agencies. Noroton (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete The information can easily be incorporated into an article on the town. I see nothing to indicate this is a notable police department per all the relevent guidlines WP:N etc. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge with Great Falls, Montana. The police department is a major public service in a community, but unless it is a very large department like the London Police or NYPD, it is only of local interest. The article looks long and unwieldy to merge, but this is really because of an exaggerated use of headings. Once these are removed, a paragraph or two can easily be assembled. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete to get it off AFD. (And per Jayron32.) Open to merging with the town. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete this cruft. Honestly, I can't imagine why we would want to start having articles on small town police departments. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 cleanup per discussion below. There does not seem to be a consensus within this debate to merge the article, but that avenue can be pursued through the normal methods. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 07:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Change result to keep (in the sense of do not delete). "Consensus" of cleanup is hypothetical. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Venetian style shoe

No references, other than dictionaries. (As an aside, those should not be in the "references" section, even if they were references.) No sources. No articles about the subject. Nothing. Perhaps it should be transwikied to Wiktionary, but I don't know if non-notable phrases are wanted there, either. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep although I'm not sure about the wonky name; I just know them as Venetian loafers. The bit about the shape imitating a Venetian bark is OK, but the etymology section is ridiculous. What we need is sources discussing when the shoe became popular and so forth. --Dhartung | Talk 08:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep: I'm a little biassed here since I did start the article. However, I am getting there, slowly but surely. Thank you for the advice about finding articles. Just in case I think I should point out that there are references on the [talk page which need exploration. Perhaps at worst this should be merged into loafer. --CyclePat (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Adequately demonstrates the existence of this shoe style. On the other hand, some of the etymological data about the origin of the name of Venice probably belongs elsewhere. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There are still no references in the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is true that some nominators like to insist on them, but the fact is that cleanup is a valid destination per WP:AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 11:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Change delete to merge to loafer. It may deserve a couple of sentences there, but there's nothing here which suggests that the name is notable, (which might justify a history of word usage section), or that it's distinguishable from a non-penny loafer. Suggest a speedy keep, so the merge tags can be properly suggested. (As nominator, I don't want to close the nomination myself.) Sorry about tying up resources with the delete vote, when the choice of merge target is obvious if the term is used in any source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As you are the nominator, be careful not to look like you're voting twice. --Oakshade (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Very common apparel sytle that's of encyclopedic and historic value (note the large amount of dictionary refs). Throwing out this article because we don't have listed a New York Times reference about it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I never subscribed to the "We must kill this article in order to save it" mentality. --Oakshade (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The votes are split evenly, but I find the "keep" comments more convincing: the "delete" voters haven't explained to me why the two references, and the fact that he was a centenarian who met one of his adversaries almost 80 years after a battle, should be removed from Wikipedia. Non-admin closure to help with an extraordinary backlog. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Kuentz

Notability questioned. The claim of notability seems only to be that this man was a member of both the French and German armies. This was not an uncommon thing during World War II when Russian, French, Polish , etc. soldiers were conscripted into the German army after defeat. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 02:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Never heard of him, but it sounds very interesting. I'm not the best person to give my views FOR or AGAINST, but it sure does sound interesting. -- Loukinho (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, interesting but not notable. Unless he is shown to have changed armies/nationalities the most or to have lived the longest from one of these cohorts by a reliable source. Perhaps this could be an example in Alsace-Lorraine#History or something. (As I was always told, there are street signs in French now, but "the German signs are in the basement") --Dhartung | Talk 09:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep The spacewar article entirely about him gives him notability enough. So keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - This article needs expanding to match the article on Harry Patch. Let's keep some humanity in Wikipedia by remembering these people who fought for our freedom. 108 years old and one of the handful of the last surviving combatents of a World War is notability enough!!! Vexorg (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; after being listed on 4 wikiproject deletion sorting pages, and after relisting the debate upon the expiry of the initial 5-day review, it received no further recommendations. There were contradicting arguments made on each side that seem equally plausible, so the determining factor is the deletion policy itself, which offers guidance to default to keep if there is any doubt. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sacinandana Swami

Individual is not notable and article has no independent third party sources. Does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Ism schism (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Individual is not notable, no third party reliable sources found. Ism schism (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Fewer than 48 Swami in ISKN. Plenty of on-line third-party sources (see Google - 7000 hits). --Oldak Quill 01:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The individual must be notable and sourced with independent reliable sources. This has not been demonstrated. Also, the amount of Google hits does not establish notability. Ism schism (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - as per User:OldakQuill, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - notable person as per publications/books. additional references to be added to prove notability Wikidas (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Response Wikidas, it has been five days since you made this statement. Where are these refererences you are talking about? If they are reliable sources they would help this discussion. In its present state, the article still fails to satisfy Wikipedia standards for notability of people. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, I comend you for your recent additions, but the references your are placing in these articles still fail to meet Wikipedia's standards for Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please note that websites owned by the subject of the article are not reliable and books published by the subject must be reviewed (verified) to see if this attribute is notable. Many preachers write books, diaries, weblogs, etc. These are not Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Sources are reliable and compatible with WIKI policy for RS. Wikidas (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, you only cited conference reports. These do not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and it still has yet to be established how this individual in notable concerning notability of people. Ism schism (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability was not really in dispute for me, as a number of published books were already refered to, links were added Wikidas (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, the number of published books does not establish notablity. These type of references still fail to establish notability of people through Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I would say that we have articles on the leadership of other religious groups, and that ISKCON are sufficiently well known -- and their swamis are sufficiently small in number and sufficiently important in their religion -- to justify notability. --SJK (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Response Using the above logic, all ISKCON swamis would have a page on Wikipedia. This is not a small group. Articles on ISKCON swamis must, like other Wikipedia articles, establish their notability of people and establish this through Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This has not been done in this article. Ism schism (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Number of publication, news articles and books is a criteria for notability both in ISKCON and in Wiki. Being a Swami or a Dasa does not establish notability both in the Wiki and in the religion followed by ISKCON. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidas (talk • contribs) 12:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, it is not the number of books but their quality. This can be verified through book reviews by independent sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The claims to notability are only referenced with two conference reports. Ism schism (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment In other articles in this series I've suggested that members of ISKON's 48-member governing body can have notability established from ISKON's role due to ISKON's status as a significant, recognized stream of Hinduism in the West and our general practice of permitting use of religious sources to establish the notability of a religion's senior leaders. However, this applies to significant denominations and major religious leaders, not to local clergy (or tiny denominations). Since there is no claim of membership in ISKON's governing body, the subject appears to be simply another Swami within ISKON. Accordingly, notability needs to be established from other sources such as reviews of his books or significant coverage or commentary on him. Religious sources can be used to establish relgious notability, but notability does need to be established from sources. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Sacinandana Swami is not a member of the Governing Body Commission. Please see, [79]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Attached is a link to ISKCON's official list of Sannyasis (or Swamis) from 2007. Any persons on this list are at least as notable in ISKCON as any GBC members, if not more so. Can this also be used to judge notability using the same logic as the GBC list? Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment it is so easy to become a guru or GBC these days. Anyone who wants to, can do it, really. Its much harder to become a sannyasi. So by this logic its more notable to be a sannyasi in ISKCON. There is no waiting list for GBCs or gurus, but one normally waits at least 5 years for sannyas. So yes its notability proven. Moreover he is very influential leader as well, out of principle not wanting to be a GBC. With regards..Wikidas (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)"

Comment With all respect to --Shirahadasha he does not even know how to spell ISKCON, that could be a reason of not understanding that over the years there were over a hundred GBC secretaries and zonal secretaries so far as membership in ISKON's governing body goes. Wikidas (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Consensus = Keep. --VS ^talk 10:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bhakti Caitanya Swami

Non notable ISKCON swami, no independent reliable sources. Does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Ism schism (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Not notable and no independent third party sources in article. Ism schism (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Fewer than 48 Swami in ISKN. Plenty of on-line third-party sources (see Google - 2000 hits). --Oldak Quill 01:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The individual must be notable and sourced with independent reliable sources. This has not been demonstrated. Also, the amount of Google hits does not establish notability. Ism schism (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - I would say that we have articles on the leadership of other religious groups, and that ISKCON are sufficiently well known -- and their swamis are sufficiently small in number and sufficiently important in their religion -- to justify notability. --SJK (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Response Using the above logic, all ISKCON swamis would have a page on Wikipedia. This is not a small group. Articles on ISKCON swamis must, like other Wikipedia articles, establish their notability of people and establish this through Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This has not been done in this article. Ism schism (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I believe (for the reasons stated on other AfDs) that given ISKON's status as a notable, substantial religion membership on the 48-member ISKON Governing Body Commission is sufficient to convey notability, just as membership in the College of Cardinals or the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards is in other religious denominations. I also believe that ISKON sources are reliable for verifying who is a senior ISKON leader. Religious sources are generally reliable for religious issues such as religious roles and religious notability. However, sources verifying that this individual is on the ISKON governing board do need to be produced, whether from ISKON or somewhere else, to justify a keep. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Consensus to keep - including nominator who altered his vote to keep. --VS ^talk 10:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prahladananda Swami

An ISKCON swami, but not a notable individual and no independent reliable sources. Does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons Ism schism (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete No independent reliable sources, and individual is not notable even if sourced. Ism schism (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Or merge to a more general article about ISKCON swamis --B.C ^{say what ?} 01:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Fewer than 48 Swami in ISKN. Plenty of on-line third-party sources (see Google - 4000 hits). --Oldak Quill 01:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The individual must be notable and sourced with independent reliable sources. This has not been demonstrated. Also, the amount of Google hits does not establish notability. Ism schism (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - as per User:OldakQuill's comments above. Also Prahladananda Swami has a very significant role within ISKCON. This could be expanded into a much better article. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Response Gouranga, where are these reliable sources? They are not in the article. If you know a reliable source from which this information can be verified, please do state where. A website owned by the subject of the article is not a reliable source. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I would say that we have articles on the leadership of other religious groups, and that ISKCON are sufficiently well known -- and their swamis are sufficiently small in number and sufficiently important in their religion -- to justify notability. --SJK (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Response Using the above logic, all ISKCON swamis would have a page on Wikipedia. This is not a small group. Articles on ISKCON swamis must, like other Wikipedia articles, establish their notability of people and establish this through Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This has not been done in this article. Ism schism (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep It just needs some sources. It need to be WIKIFIED not DELETED! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior4321 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - NN per WP:BIO due to lack of reliable sources. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment For the reasons stated elsewhere I believe membership in ISKON's 48-member Governing Body Commission is sufficient evidence of notability to justify a keep, just as is the case for membership in other religion governing bodies like the College of Cardinals or the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards. Note that this applies only to senior religious leaders, not to every Swami. It also only applies to religious denominations of a reasonable size and notability/significance (an unaffiliated local church can't evade notability criteria by calling itself a denomination and its minister the denomination's head). ISKON sources would be reliable for identifying who is a senior ISKON leader. That said, an individual's own web site can't be used to establish the facts identifying that individual as notable. Independent sources, religious or secular, have to be used for this purpose in every case. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Prahladananda Swami is NOT a member of the Governing Body Commission. Please see, [80]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment "In 1990 he was appointed to head the GBC committee of Health and Welfare. In 1991, the GBC made him the head of a ministry for members of the renounced order of life" [81] - basically Prahladananda Swami heads up the organisation matters of all Swami's (spiritual leaders in the renounced order) in ISKCON. This should be made clear in the article. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

See also official list of ISKCON Sannyasis (or Swamis) from 2007 which includes Prahladananda Swami. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Commment GourangaUK has provided a link showing Prahladananda Swami as a member of the faculty of Bhaktivedanta College and provided a list of ISKCON swamis, of which he is a leader. I feel, these are two reliable sources which could meet the minimium criteria for references. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep per GourangaUK's references. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Note for Administrator - nominator changed vote to keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 absolute consensus able to be determined - default to keep. --VS ^talk 10:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indradyumna Swami

Non notable individual. Article does not demonstrate how individual is any different from the other 100 or so ISKCON swamis. Does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Ism schism (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete No independent reliable sources, and individual is not notable even if sourced. Ism schism (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Or merge to a more general article about ISKCON swamis --B.C ^{say what ?} 01:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Fewer than 48 Swami in ISKN. Plenty of on-line third-party sources (see Google - 29,000 hits). --Oldak Quill 01:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The individual must be notable and sourced with independent reliable sources. This has not been demonstrated. Also, the amount of Google hits does not establish notability. Ism schism (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hold "This has no been demonstrated" - the fact tags were added the same day as AFD, give contributors some time to add references. Chopper Dave (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. This article is over a year old. I have personally looked, and will keep looking, but have found no independent reliable sources who address the subject at hand (more than in passing). Even if independent reliable sources are found, I do not find any assertion of notability in the article or in what I have read while looking for references. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Response In Sepember of 2007 the article was tagged for notablity. It was removed (although I believe never fully addressed). There has been ample time since then to address this issue. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep The contently is notable, as any Google search will show. I also fear that the proposed deletion of this page is potentially part of a larger objective to remove a number of ISKCON related pages. Yes it needs sources, but No lets not delete a useful article out of hand. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Google searches do not establish notability. Have any academic works been written about him, do scholars discuss his teachings and cite his books? These are the standards of wikipedia: Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. For this article to pass these standards it must be written accordingly and be sourced accordingly. This article is not. There is no evidence to prove otherwise. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - notable person as per publications/online records and books. additional references to be added to prove notability Wikidas (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Response Wikidas, it has been five days since you made this statement. Where are these refererences you are talking about? If they are reliable sources they would help this discussion. In its present state, the article still fails to satisfy Wikipedia standards for notability of people. Thanks. Ism schism (talk)

Wikidas, I comend you for your recent additions, but the references your are placing in these articles still fail to meet Wikipedia's standards for Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please note that websites owned by the subject of the article are not reliable and books published by the subject must be reviewed (verified) to see if this attribute is notable. Many preachers write books, diaries, weblogs, etc. These are not Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess my previous reply is standing. References added comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, but not with your interpretation of it. Wikidas (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, an autobiography by the subject of the article is not a Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Also, articles which only mention the subject in passing are also not Wikipedia:Reliable sources that establish notability of people. Please try to find Wikipedia:Reliable sources that establish notability of people. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper source was added. I agree that the article needs to be downsized or edited to avoid above comments. And for BLP autobiography is a bona fide source.Wikidas (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This newspaper source only mentions the subject of the article in passing and does not establish notability of people through Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I would say that we have articles on the leadership of other religious groups, and that ISKCON are sufficiently well known -- and their swamis are sufficiently small in number and sufficiently important in their religion -- to justify notability. --SJK (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Response Using the above logic, all ISKCON swamis would have a page on Wikipedia. This is not a small group. Articles on ISKCON swamis must, like other Wikipedia articles, establish their notability of people and establish this through Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This has not been done in this article. Ism schism (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Ism schism, you have nominated for deletion delete practically every ISKCON related article you have come across. Where is the logic in this? Are we to believe you really feel that they are all non-notable? Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Response Gouranga, I have come across hundreds of ISKCON related articles. I have AfD this article because it is a non notable biography with no Wikipedia:Reliable sources to back it up. The article does not comply with notability of people. There are no independent sources as well. The other article's I have nominated in the past have been for the same reasons here. There are dozens and dozens of notable ISKCON religious leaders, but this one under discussion has yet to show notability. Ism schism (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep A few sources and it's all good, why delete a perfectly good article? Ism schism, are you just trying to delete all of the ISKCON articles? Wow...that's not being a good wikipedian. Warrior4321^talkContribs 22:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
comment and Request Warrior, could you please help us--how can we tell who are the leading people in this religious movement? What are the criteria that we should use.? DGG (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment I believe (for the reasons stated on other AfDs) that given ISKON's status as a notable, substantial religion membership on the 48-member ISKON governing board is sufficient to convey notability, just as membership in the College of Cardinals or the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards is in other religious denominations. I also believe that ISKON sources are reliable for verifying who is a senior ISKON leader. Religious sources are generally reliable for religious issues such as religious roles and religious notability. However, sources verifying that this individual is on the ISKON governing board do need to be produced, whether from ISKON or somewhere else, to justify a keep. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Indradyumna Swami is NOT a member of the Governing Body Commission. Please see, [82]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Indradyumna Swami is a spiritual leader within ISKCON. GBC posts are primarily managerial in nature. As a sanyassi (Swami) and leader, Indrayumna Swami is highly notable amongst ISKCON members, regardless of being a GBC or not.[83] He has played a very active role in the movement since the early 1970's. There are approximately 70 official Swami's in ISKCON, only some of which are involved in managerial GBC roles. Indrayumna Swami had an article written about him in Back to Godhead, the official ISKCON magazine at this link Gouranga(UK) (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

See also official list of ISKCON Sannyasis (or Swamis) from 2007, which includes Indraymuna Swami. Regards Gouranga(UK) (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 16:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zain Shaheed

Probable hoax. It reads like an autobiography, I can't find any sources to corroborate any of the claims, and it was created by a SPA. I'd say definitely hoax except for the small possibility that it's simply lack of English languages sources that's the problem. But even then, I'd expect to find something in searching. Jfire (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as per Nom. Edward321 (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, even with language issues, you'd find some trace of *something* in English. Instead a wiki mirror explosion. Travellingcari (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I happen to know that some of the Article is invalid, Zain is not engaged, didn't hide from the Cameras in quite the way depicted and studies Law and Politics in Queen Mary University of London. He has continued to write beautiful songs with a tropical flavour and has recently started playing the drums for an Original band who plan to start gigging in London in the next few months... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.248.86 (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC) — 138.37.248.86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cali Sales

Non-notable person. Only notability is being related to a notable person. Per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Agree with nominator. Nothing in there to assert notability. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 01:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - WP:BIO - Relationships do not confer notability, and in this case, the mother of the subject is notable, but not extremely at that. Jd027^chat 01:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete: Per WP:NOTINHERITED. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 03:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ball bag (BDSM)

Un-encyclopedic, unsourced for many months ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete This article makes me cringe for more than one reason. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good reason for deletion. I don't think it's any less encyclopedic than dildo, but just harder to find cites on, and at the moment fails WP:V. If citations are added I may lean towards keep.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete unless sourced. You can find them for sale, but not much seems to have been written. We are not a directory of leather items or bondage gear. --Dhartung | Talk 11:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Exterminate per above comments. Red Zion^X 18:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, redirect to Cock and ball torture - It's essentially an article about a device to accomplish CBT, but I doubt the content would ever be enough to warrant a separate article even if sources could be found. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Berry (journalist)

Reporter and journalist without a clear claim to notability per WP:BIO. Most significant coverage seems to be an interview he did as curricular material. Jfire (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable. Shapiros10 (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Berry is a notable reporter, and has just started reporting for Seven News in Sydney on state government issues, including the Wollongong sex scandal. Whats new? (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

How is reporting on politics and a sex scandal in Australia notable? ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here♥ 12:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A good example of why A7 should probably explicitely cover animals.--Kubigula (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buddy, The Springer

Non-notable per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, perhaps speedily. Not notable. Pburka (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - absolutely no notability. Jd027^chat 02:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete Non-notable. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 02:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as per above. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep How adorable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.152.249 (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Aww how cute! But delete it anyway as not notable. Bearian (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You guessed it, delete as NN --BizMgr (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sick Time

Non-notable low-budget film. No external reviews on IMDB. I found only a single source of questionable reliability: [84]. Previously part of a mass AfD that was closed as no consensus. Jfire (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete no external reviews at IMDb, no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Djsasso (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - unable to find any sources to establish notability. No indication of awards, or of even any significant critical reviews. -- Whpq (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Myxx (duo)

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Gary King (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Gary King. Shapiros10 (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, possibly speedy A7. No notation as to how they are notable, other than being cousins of B5. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete The article says that they are related to some other band. That does not make this group notable. If I personally am related to the President, I don't get my own article just because of that. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was duplicate nomination. Non-admin close. cab (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fowlers Hollow Run

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fowlers Hollow Run

Articles for deletion/Fowlers Hollow Run (2nd nomination)

Non-notable river with no references or citations to establish notability. Bstone (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn and no delete votes. Non-admin closure. Jfire (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fowlers Hollow Run

~~Non-notable river with no references or citations to assert notability.~~ Bstone (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Sorry. Bstone (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Perhaps the gun has been jumped on this. It looks like someone is working to expand it. Plunketts Creek is another very small stream that has reached FA status. And a PA state park is named for it. Seems notable Dincher (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I confirmed the existence of Fowler Hollow Run at GNIS. Landforms such as rivers seem to fall into the category of things that are automatically notable. Another editor has added a Pennsylvania state government reference to the article. --Eastmain (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I've expanded the article a bit and there's plenty of room for more. Most geographical features are inherently notable. Pburka (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep would be notable even without a state park named for it (Fowlers Hollow State Park), I also plan to add some to it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - This is yet another example of why its disruptive to nominate an article for deletion so soon after its creation (less than five hours in this case!). Such quick deletion attempts should be reserved for only blatant vandalism, nonsense or spam. --Oakshade (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The nomination for deletion has been withdrawn. See above. So what is next? Dincher (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 16:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Benetl

Non notable product. Article was already PROD, plus tagged as non-notable, and a possible confict of interest (see revision history). These tags were removed by the article author with no explanation. CultureDrone (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Notability not asserted. I cannot find independent sources on Google. -- Lea (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

delete per nom Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 01:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pinoy Henyo

Delete non notable website Asod123123 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete I don't see how this is notable over the many similar online services offered by Yahoo and Google. --Polaron | Talk 16:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Will the closing admin please also note that the nominator's contributions show him/her to be a single-purpose account user, using it solely to nominate stuff for deletion.--Vox Humana 8' 00:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:WEB. Jfire (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion below. Non-admin close. --jonny-m t 07:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zhu Xiao Dong

A supposedly notable surgeon, but very few sources are to be found. Jmlk 1 7 00:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, e.g. here's a long profile of him in Wen Wei Po: [85]. cab (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, notable and verifiable. Snake66 (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Consensus is delete - 3 votes by article's first author noted and considered.. --VS ^talk 10:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph Sperry, Ph.D.

Absolutely nothing notable, per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. One might expect a hospital president to be the subject of coverage by reliable sources, particularly if he did something newsworthy or controversial, such as shutting down an unprofitable hospital. See http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-545936_ITM --Eastmain (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep notable per positions held and per above. JJL (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep notable positions, public references, significant newsworthy actions of closing hospitals —Preceding --68.9.93.185 (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)unsigned comment added by Waterwindsail (talk • contribs) 04:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-32287257_ITM Closure of Darien Health Care Center —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterwindsail (talk • contribs) 04:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: per WP:AFD, it needs to be disclosed that the above comment is from the page's author . -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 04:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete: Nothing particularly notable. No strong references. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 04:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, accomplished career physician, but no evidence of real notability. --Dhartung | Talk 09:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete No justification in the article for notability above any other physician has. Notability for closing a hospital needs to be proved and the article doesn't do that at the moment. This sort of thing happens all the time. Alberon (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC).

Keep added information regarding other acomplishments in sailboat racing. 23:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC) added references to Dr Sperry's research in schizophrenia --Waterwindsail (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Both of the above are from the page's creator, and it has to said that, without good external links, neither bits of information make the sjubject notable. Alberon (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment The external links are now good. sorry for the mistake --Waterwindsail (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Added internal relevant links, Added specific references from the NY Times --Waterwindsail (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC) --Waterwindsail (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

- Comment it might be best if you were to edit your responses into at most a single vote. JJL (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Will do, thats a good suggestion
keep and move Seems to have more than enough reliable sources currently at the bottom of the article. The article title should be moved however to comply with the MOS. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Title moved and references to Dr. changed to conform to MOS. Thanks for the advice.--Waterwindsail (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Close as delete I read the discussion and the article. The author seems to be reaching for straws by referencing the fellow's sailing accomplishments. Sorry, he just isn't notable. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Note to closing administrator The creator of the article has !voted three times in this debate. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 16:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Malaka Dewapriya

Seems very advertisement-like. Non-notable per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment author has repeatedly removed the AfD notice from the article. JohnCD (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - there may possibly be some notability lurking beneath all the promotion (probably self-promotion, from its intensity) but it would require a lot of work to make an acceptable article; the author has shown no inclination to co-operate or listen to advice, and has now been blocked indefinitely under both his usernames. JohnCD (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable film student. Jmlk 1 7 00:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - this article is part of a determined campaign of self-promotion. It was made by Srilanka short film (talk · contribs) and Srilankan short film (talk · contribs) who both got blocked on 20 Feb for creating inappropriate articles, removing tags etc; today Malakadew (talk · contribs) has taken up the running, removing the AfD tag for a SIXTH time, and has also been blocked as a sock. So there is blatant COI as an additional reason for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete utterly NN, fails WP:BIO, and WP:SPAM/WP:COI too by the looks of things. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 04:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Father Ned Donoher

Absolutely nothing notable or remarkable about this person. WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete nn, vanity. JJL (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete entirely non-notable. Travellingcari (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Might be a nice guy, but seems non-notable as far as wiki is concerned. Alberon (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete totally non-notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC).
Keep At least, perhaps, merged into Detroit Catholic Central High School Scipio Carthage (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, note that I am the article's creator.Scipio Carthage (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deletion by Animum. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TripleMe

Common website, no notability beyond being online. Per WP:WEB. Gary King (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was on hold, AKA keep for now. Since we're trying to clear the AfD backlog, and as a result of the injunction, I'm closing this for now. By all means, when the injunction is lifted, you're free to re-nom this for deletion or be bold and merge/redirect the article yourself. I encourage the continuation of discussion on the talk page of the article. Wizardman 03:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oucho the Cactus

Contested prod. Non-notable fictional character, doesn't merit stand-alone article. No sources aside from CBBC web site generic link. Borders on fancruft. Information would be better included in the CBBC article, or the Ed Petrie article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: The outcome of this debate will not be put into effect until this Halt to activities concerning TV characters is settled. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom - exactly the reason I prodded it to start with. _Talk Islander 15:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to Ed Petrie. So far as the CBBC viewers are concerned, Oucho and Petrie go together like Kukla, Fran & Ollie or Sherry & Lambchop or Edgar & Charlie. Mandsford (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: As a television character, doesn't this AfD fall under the ArbComm injunction? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not up on that. Can you supply a link to a relevant page, please? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  - Ditto that... _Talk Islander 23:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
What he's referring to is something called Halt to activities; the powers that be decided to have a discussion about guidelines for TV episodes and TV show characters; the administrators are to hold off on ruling "keep" or "delete" until a decision is made. So yes, there's an injunction; no, it doesn't stop you from commenting on this nomination. Mandsford (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. We'll stand by while the issue is settled. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going with a merge and redirect here to the show in general, based on what I'm seeing. The "cruft" argument, to defer to the arbcomm issue, doesn't sit well with me (and never has) - but somewhere maybe some of this should be preserved. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep per current ArbCom injunction. Why are these AFDs kept open longer than a minute or two? The ArbCom injunction does not allow any outcome except keep. --Willow Wait (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that's incorrect. The injunction does not dictate that the only outcome of an AfD like this is to keep, but that no action on an involved AfD shall take effect until the issue involving the injunction is resolved. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Punkmorten (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saif ad-Din Abu-Bakr

Can't find much information beyond the fact that this person filled a gap of time between two other rulers. Per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. The unelected ruler of a country or province is automatically notable, in the same way that elected politicians at that level are. This is true whether he inherited his position or became ruller by overthrowing someone else. --Eastmain (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep all sultans, bishops, etc. There seem to be a lot of odd nominations today. Pburka (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I add here what I already wrote on the discussian page of the article. If you can not find enough info about the Mamluk sultans then it is not their mistakes . I have a lot of info about all of them. Thank you. Why should it be deleted ? We aiming to make articles for all Mamluk Sultans. Please we need some opinions because I do not understand. Thank you. yes as usual I start an article by making the heading and name then I add the information later. This is only the start. See all my articles please .. all start this way to fix the name of the sultan and link it eveywhere then the rest follows.Samsam22 (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC), If you look here You will see some names are in red . We are aiming to turn these names to blue. Once we did that we will have history of Mamluks clear and complete on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia wish not to have history of Mamluks on their site then please let me know so I spare my effort. Thanks Samsam22 (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep as per Eastmain. Edward321 (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, any person in such a position is notable. If you haven't found the information, you haven't looked hard enough, because I am certain that historians have written about him. Everyking (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - filling a gap between two rulers would mean that he was a ruler. Which would make him notable. matt91486 (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, like the other articles pertaining to Mamluk sultans, this one also deserves a separate mention. --Chapultepec (talk) 06:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 04:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lyons Mill Road

Non-notable per WP:SCL. Gary King (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Owings Mills, Maryland#Transportation, where it is listed as one of the roads in the area. Sebwite (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge. Nothing especially historical, presently significant, or obviously notable about this road (neither asserted nor that I can find). DMacks (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge as per above. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge per above. The article as it exists is speediable, but merging still allows people to make an actual article out of things if they're able to pull enough together later on. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge insignificant random road. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. The road mapped here appears to be a regular arterial road, not a numbered highway, and certainly not a major part of the Owens Mills transportation infrastructure. Incidentally, Google Maps calls the road "Lyons Mill Rd", not "Lyons Mills Rd". Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Although I must ask about the nomination, what does the school notability policy have to do with this? Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge to Owings Mills, Maryland#Transportation; the significance of the road is not asserted. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 21:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in the absence of any sources whatsoever. (The external link in the article is only a trivial passing mention. Non-admin closure to help with extraordinary backlog; I'll tag the article as CSD G6. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Telepeñasco

No references on the page, and I couldn't find much else on my own. There is very little to work with in the article. Per WP:MEDIA. Gary King (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Licensed broadcasters are notable. This station broadcasts via a cable system, but apparently not over the air. A search for Telepeñasco in the gob.mx domain doesn't turn anything up, suggesting that it may not have a broadcasting licence. And the Spanish-language Wikipedia doesn't have an article on Telepeñasco yet. --Eastmain (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep if genuine sources can be found. Delete otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 16:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Te Karehu

Non-notable per WP:BIO. Very little context to start from, too. Gary King (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

delete per nom Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 01:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete: Dependent. Daughter of someone. No indication that she was herself a person of great note, and she enters such historical record as there is as a casualty. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Virginia Conn

Borderline non-notable, per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete As per the nom, she is almost notable. Maybe if one of her plays was a hit she would be notable. Unfortunately, there are thousands of authors like her who published a couple of books and had them featured on some magazines or newspapers, etc. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 00:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Neutral - I'd just like to point out that while not one particular piece that's she has performed in or created is worth significant attention, it is possible that the sum of the parts makes the subject notable, as some of accomplishments are somewhat outstanding, but borderline notable at that. Jd027^chat 00:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete: Absolutely none of the article indicates notability. "Getting a reading" is the same thing as "has been submitted," and it has gotten a reading "in New York City" rather than at a particular theater. Chapbooks and little magazine publications are all fine things, but they're achievements shared by thousands a year. They are not indications of a proper encyclopedia entry. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, writer awaiting notability. --Dhartung | Talk 11:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The illuminoids

Non-notable per WP:BIO. Not much notability beyond MySpace. Gary King (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Non notable under WP:MUSIC. Tagged under A7. Undeath (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Non-admin closure Jfire (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dirk Gladstone

Non-notable per WP:BIO. I'm not even sure if the information presented here is true or a hoax, considering the first and last sentences (the person was born 1849 yet died just last year?) Gary King (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Hoax, nonsense. "He was often mistaken for a mountain goat due to his unwieldly gait and shaggy mane". Pburka (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - A3, pure vandalism page. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 01:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete as vandalism. So tagged. Aside from the bogus and unfounded claim that Mr. Gladstone was over 150 years old (which, if true, would alone make him highly notable), the article is pure vandalism. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Pure vandalism in the form of a nonsensical hoax: "bovinexcretiatosis", or bullshit-itis, says it all. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Retagged. AfD does not supersede CSD, as claimed in edit summary. Jfire (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 16:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asher Tarivona Mutsengi

Non-notable as per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:BIO --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 00:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I found a number of published contributions written by him, but nothing written about him. --Eastmain (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Seems to be an avid writer, but few references refer to him. Pburka (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per On the other side. This article will never grow beyond one sentence if we keep it. Shapiros10 (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RChurch

Delete - Article about a non-notable chruch. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The article is on a church directory, not a church itself. However, it does not matter. See my opinion below. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 00:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete : Wikipedia is not a directory for every website on the internet. Unless this site somehow triggers some big lawsuit or it makes the news for a week, it is definitely not notable. In fact, I'm not even sure whether Christians themselves who would use the site know about it. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 00:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete, no indication of passing WP:WEB. --Dhartung | Talk 09:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. No indication of notability. Previous efforts to add a link to the church directory in various articles (59.92.78.68, 59.92.34.235, 59.92.72.158 and 59.92.15.118) make me think this is simply promotional and any article will require significant editor attention to keep it NPOV. -- SiobhanHansa 14:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. I've changed my mind on this after reading the article again. It's a bit unclear where this stands per WP:BIO for athletes. However, what people appear to have missed is that the reference refers to this player being called up for the Welsh squad match, NOT the actual Wales team. A Welsh squad match would be where prospective players for that squad play each other in order to show whether they're good enough for the full team. Thus, currently fails WP:BIO. Black Kite 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wyn Matthews

Delete Not a notable biography. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment. He appears to be part of a team which won a British Isles championship. The article is unreferenced, though. --Eastmain (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Nothing in the article seems notable. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 00:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I was able to add a reference, and I think being on the Wales national team is a proof of notability. --Eastmain (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete On the Welsh Lawn Bowling national team? I'm sorry Eastmain, but some Welsh lawn bowler isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Shapiros10 (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I strongly disagree with Shapiros10. He's an athlete who competed at the top level of his sport. Lawn bowling is a well established sport. Pburka (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Where do we draw the line? Granting that lawn bowling is a well established sport (it's played at the Commonwealth Games), it's not really a very popular spectator sport. It's not like we're talking football or basketball here. If Matthews was a big star of the sport, the David Beckham of lawn bowling or whatever, then fine. But he's not, or if he is it's not shown in the article; he's just another good player, in a second-tier sport. Have to draw the line somewhere. Herostratus (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete: Most of the "notable athletes" who do have articles probably shouldn't (guys who played in a single cricket match in 1805, college Junior Varsity players, people who played first base for a single season in the minor leagues), and this is an athlete who is not quite notable in a sport that is at the threshold of itself being notable. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. He didn't just play at the highest level, he played on a team at the highest level which won a championship. Let's be cautious about WP:BIAS here. Bowls may not be popular in the US, but it's more widely played in Commonwealth nations. It was even a demonstration sport at the melbourne Olympics. He's clearly notable according to the current guidelines. If you want to change the guidelines this isn't the forum for it. Pburka (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- I feel that it is incumbent upon me to point out that we do not, in fact, have large numbers of articles on "people who played first base for a single season in the minor leagues". As such, take the above editor's remarks with a grain of salt. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!)
Delete, sport is too small. Punkmorten (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep, seems reasonably notable within the context of his sport. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep I think being on the Wales team is notable enough. Warrior4321^talkContribs 22:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Clearly meets WP:N. Seems to be issues of Bias in this afd. -Djsasso (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep What does the popularity of the sport have to do with it? he meets the standard requirements for notability.DGG (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Utgard Loki. If we have players in Major League baseball who don't have articles, why lawn bowlers? Shapiros10 (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Have we ever deleted a Major League Baseball player? I highly doubt it. Besides, you've voted twice. Pburka (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Firstly, please stop talking about "lawn bowling". The sport is called "bowls". It's certainly popular in the UK - there are bowling greens in most local parks, as well as many bowling clubs, and it is frequently on TV. Many of the top players are from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, so I'm sure that it's just as popular there, and it's also played in India and Pakistan. I think it's a pretty safe bet that there are more people in the world familiar with this sport than with baseball or American "football". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm just saying, I have checked the WP current rosters of several MLB teams, and there are no articles for at least 10 players. Also, is bowls going to be in the Beijing Olympics? I think not. Shapiros10 (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clifford Chance Sculpture Award

Prod was removed. Non notable university award. NAHID 10:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete or Merge: The award is definitely not notable enough to deserve its own article as there is not much information on it to write an accurate article. If possible, it might be appropriate to merge the article into an article for the University that give the award. Otherwise, it should be deleted. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 00:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
DO NOT Delete: There is little written about this award because it is in its infancy - It was only this year that the Award Became a public exhibition - but the Award brings together the University of the Arts London - which is Europe's largest centre for education in art communication and design, and Clifford Chance which is the largest Law Firm in the World. It is notable.
Delete: Wikipedia does not allow advertising, which includes press releases or profile-boosting for even laudable and worthy subjects. Instead, it is a tertiary source of information and relies solely upon, basically, everyone else having noted something first. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Utgard Loki. WP is not a listing of various awards, no matter how nice. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Notability is not inherited from the sponsor of an award. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep - It is a minor award, but it is an award. I suspect that the prize of £3000 is a very helpful start in life to a new graduate in fine art, a group who are not usually rich. This is a harmless little page. We do not now allow categories for awards, so that lists of winners ought to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 20:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep This small article represents what is a young but very important award for emerging artists in the UK. It is notable and should definitly NOT be deleted or merged.Comet000 (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep This article will be informative to a group of emerging artists who are very much in need of information about award schemes such as this. This article shouldn't be treated as advertising, but as a valuable educational resource for early career artists looking for exposure and support. Additional information about the scheme would be useful. jeremyhutchison, 22:26 26th february 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremyhutchison (talk • contribs) 22:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under A7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Thorpe

Not a notable biography. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by SchuminWeb CSD A7 (non-admin close). —Travis ^talk 00:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infinity Theory

I looked at the external link, this article is just displaying poor advertisement for a band. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete but I've also added a CSD template, per CSD A3. <3 bunny 02:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Alexf CSD G2 (non-admin close). —Travis ^talk 00:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polaris999/workspace/page20/Template: myei

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Polaris999/workspace/page20/Template: myei

The article is blank.
It's probably just another joke. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Tagged for Speedy deletion under CSD G2, test page. Kesac (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deletion (non-Admin AfD closure) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtrebbien (talk • contribs)

[edit] Matt Youmans

False statements, but most importantly, nonsense. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brash Clan

Not notable. Only about a race that exists in World of Warcraft, which is best left for the World of Warcraft wiki. --AAA! (AAAA) 15:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete: Fancruft/clancruft/avatarcruft: doesn't exist when the power goes off. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable article about fictional subject. Dgf32 (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fairy Princess

Lack of notability - the author mentioned doesn't currently have an article. Addhoc (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to fairy: Beyond the fact that this book doesn't exist and this author has no biography, we have a common noun and a common feature in children's literature and ancient folk literature. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete I don't even know if the author exists. If the person had published works already, then I would think that it would be easy to find some of them online, but that apparently is not the case. Gary King (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete When the book comes out, we can make an article about it. Right now, it's just a line saying the author and a character. That's not important, plus no SOURCES!!! Warrior4321^talkContribs 22:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't Delete

This is a genuine artical about a genuine novel. My book IS being published as wee speak! It's due out in 2009/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plannietink05 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Patriot Union Of America

[edit] Nic Hypolite

[edit] SFML

[edit] Sarav viapak

[edit] Rabio Lepus

[edit] IMDEX

[edit] The Offs

[edit] Toe cleavage

[edit] Economic development corporation

[edit] Welland Estate

[edit] Toledano Tradition

[edit] Mybytes

[edit] Dialog engineering

[edit] PIPC Management Consultancy

[edit] Michael Shane Neal

[edit] Hanging Basket Tree

[edit] Bridges in film

[edit] Chrysler LA engine

[edit] Chadminton

[edit] Equanimity

[edit] Sammamish Symphony Orchestra

[edit] Sparx Enterprise Architect

[edit] WLS-TV minivan crash incident

[edit] Eddie Byrd

[edit] Mickey Renaud

[edit] Previous afd's supporting junior players not being notable

[edit] Editorofthewiki's notability claims for the article

[edit] Awards of the subject

[edit] Notes

[edit] The History of River Trips in Peterborough

[edit] Kris Gate

[edit] Phil Cave

[edit] Albanian pederasty

[edit] TAIKOPROJECT

[edit] Shoddling

[edit] Dolla (rapper)

[edit] List of sidekicks

[edit] Plot of The Thing

[edit] Doe Ray Me

[edit] Bi Writers Association

[edit] Huaraz Satyricon

[edit] Phoenician gene

[edit] Tomi Huhtanen

[edit] Lamer

[edit] Business control systems

[edit] Hema Sinha

[edit] History of Star Trek on NBC

[edit] Jeff Zicker

[edit] Lovechild (Nicole Wray album)

[edit] The Ballad of Stuffed Trigger

[edit] Dan Besse

[edit] GIVE Center East

[edit] Jasmine 'Jazz' Summers

[edit] Oneonta Gulf Coast Collaboration

[edit] Patrick Mailey

[edit] Resource Attention Deficit Disorder

[edit] Approaches to International Law

[edit] In the Pictures

[edit] Passenger and Crew list of the SS Gothenburg

[edit] Bharat punarnirman dal

[edit] Chris Sebastian

[edit] Brayer (person)

[edit] List of Wheel of Fortune puzzle categories

[edit] Shaw History

[edit] Nougatocity

[edit] Wheel of Fortune (The wheel's configuration)

[edit] Chinmay purohit filmography

[edit] Obamakin

[edit] Medical School for International Health

[edit] First SHOOFtv Competition

[edit] SHOOF Troops

[edit] Jongtology

[edit] Jocelyne Couture-Nowak

[edit] Orpha-Nor

[edit] Lydia Maca Lacar

[edit] Damn Straight

[edit] How to make a baby bonnet