Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 24

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 21:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ramp Recordings

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

This article asserts notability on the basis of signings to contract deals. Before this author began editing, these artists' only signing was indicated to be a different, and definitely notable independent label. The only links that seem to attempt to verify notability are the official site [www.ramprecordings.com], which is only a reserved holding page with no content, MySpace, and a user-submitted entry at discogs.com.

Having performed a search through Google, I cannot find any reliable secondary sources which might demonstrate notability. Since the article asserts notability through signings, and as the PROD was removed, I am bringing this to AfD on the grounds that it does not meet, and does not appear capable of meeting, the requirements of WP:COMPANY. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

EDITED —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basstheworld (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Website is active.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basstheworld (talk • contribs) 15:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I only know that the website was inactive when I nominated. Other editors should take note of the fact that the official website is now active when considering this AfD - Fritzpoll (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing to suggest that this is a major independent label as defined at WP:MUSIC, to wit around more than a few years with a sizable stable of notable artists, and no secondary sources to verify notability for general organizations. The numbering scheme on their discography in the article suggests on the contrary that they are relatively new. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The article was kept. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (soundtrack)

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (soundtrack) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No proof that this is real Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 23:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep or Merge the 'article' is a mess but the soundtrack apparently exists. Merge to movie? I don't know the policy on soundtracks. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It's real, and although I haven't done an in depth survey of all coverage (it's late), it would be difficult to imagine a music project in which Nick Cave was involved that didn't pass notability guidelines. The article does require some clean up, however. --Sturm 23:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with movie. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 23:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per new info. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 23:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without merging. The music of this film is not popularized beyond the scope of the film itself. It would be a better approach to cover composition of the music in the film article's Production section and any opinion about the music in the Critical reaction section (if it was a much-noticed element). A mere track listing is not encyclopedic here, especially considering that the individual songs lack notability on their own, too. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per added reviews; looks like the soundtrack's more important than I realized. Article could use some fleshing out beyond the track listing, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and Merge with the film's article. Hazillow (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect The only thing worth saving is the mention that Nick Cave worked on the soundtrack. If you can fit that in with the film article, feel free. -Freekee (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with film article The Dominator (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Nick Cave is a major artist and this is his latest album-length release. I've seen several reviews of it and articles about it so it meets the interpretation of WP:N at WP:MUSIC. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  Comment I've just added three reviews of the album, all of which attest that this is a Nick Cave album. The nominator probably should have dug around for a bit longer before labeling this album a hoax - while it's hard to find references on Google as it has the same name as the movie, it does appear on many (but not all) major music websites. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Soundtrack albums are just as inherently notable as other widely available album releases, and the fact this is a Nick Cave release makes it all the more notable. 23skidoo (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- legitimate release from a notable artist. - Longhair\^talk 03:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The nomination rationale is that this is unverifiable – it clearly is. There is not consensus that film soundtracks, particularly ones that are not a compilation of songs, are not notable on their own merit. --Canley (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, there is plenty of proof that this is real, and as a Nick Cave release it's certainly notable as well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC).
• Keep per Sturm & 23skidoo. tomasz. 19:28, 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. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Horse

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

1) The article's subject ("Jesus horse") does not meet notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. (See: Wikipedia:Notability.) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary of slang terms. 2) The content is not suitable for an encyclopedia. (See:Reasons for deletion.) 3) "Articles about newly-coined words or terms" should not be included in Wikipedia. (See:Reasons for deletion.) The term "Jesus horse" is a protologism, a neologism that is not widely used. Wikipedia guidelines state that neologisms should not be used in articltes, much less to have an article on a neologism. (See Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms.) 4) Even if Wikipedia guidelines encouraged articles on notable neologisms, the term "Jesus horse" is not notable or widely used. Being used in a joke on Saturday Night Live does not constitute sufficient use for inclusion in Wikipedia. (See Articles for deletion (Tips on dealing with other material). 5) Quotes are not to be included on Wikipedia. If you want to quote a joke from Saturday Night Live it belongs in Wikiquotes, not Wikipedia. (See Articles for deletion (Tips on dealing with other material). Dgf32 (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This is not a widely used term for a dinosaur, and is based on a little known SNL joke.--Hazillow (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not only is this a slang term, it is mildly offensive. It has no reason to stay in Wikipedia - Weebiloobil (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable Neologism. AndyBQ (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable neologism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable neologism. Maxamegalon2000 06:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nothing links there and it's a pointless article. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 06:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The reason for deletion is subjective, and is not in line with the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, specifically the Reasons for Deletion. Notability is one of the weakest and most subjective of the reasons for deletion, and unless there are other compelling reasons for deletion, notability by itself is not sufficient for deletion. 2. The reason for deletion is unfounded. Use of this term has grown since its introduction four years ago, and is widely used outside of discussions about SNL as a sarcastic exagerration of attempts by fundamentalist Christians to promote young earth creationism in schools, and in society at large. 3. As a descriptive idiom that is widely used, this topic is justifiable as a Wikipedia article which explains the etymology of this idiom, and adds to the understanding of the growing and changing language in use today.Edgewise (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Gee, you got references for any of that? --Dhartung | Talk 19:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Note that Edgewise (talk) is the original creator and only significant editor of the article. Dgf32 (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable neologism. NHRHS2010 03:18, 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 redirect to Pac-Man clones. Non-admin close. Jfire (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pac-Girl

Pac-Girl (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is not notable enough to warrant its own article. I have included a bit about it on the Pac-Man clones page so it is not lost to Wikipedia. Furthermore, it is completely unsourced and a google search turns up no historical information on the game that I can see. Hazillow (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Couldn't find anything asserting notability either. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with Pac-Man clones. It exists. That's about all that can be said about it. It doesn't need it's own article to say it, though. DarkAudit (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There is a bit on this game on the Pac-Man clones article (about as much that is useful).--Hazillow (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and MergeRedirect^{KiloByte (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)} (the latter already done). KiloByte (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pac-Man clones as a clearly plausible search term. Not to mention that the nom says it's already been merged, so we need to preserve the history. cab (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Do we need to mention Redirect explicitely? I rarely edit Wikipedia, but I believe that "delete" doesn't preclude having a redirect. There's no real history to preserve, the article doesn't deserve to exist in its present (and any other I can think of) form other than the single sentence in Pac-Man clones, yet deleted articles for a valid topic should leave redirects behind them. KiloByte (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pac-Man clones. Delete and Merge is a GFDL violation. according to the main Afd page. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pac-Man clones, as it probably presents the reader with more useful information than a stub with a "See Also" link.Gazimoff (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect, though very slightly inclined to redirect Redirect, just in case; more space is used with userpages from users that just edited their userpage and then made no other edits than with this article's preserved history. Though, on the other hand, (as noted above) there isn't much to preserve. ♠TomasBat 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pac-Man clones, where the information has already been included. This is not notable in itself, but does make for an interesting note in the latter article. --Sturm 10:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pac-Man clones, per all of the above. Fusionmix 17:58, 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 delete. Canley (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transference-short film

Transference-short film (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable student film. This is part of a determined campaign of self-promotion by the director Malaka Dewapriya under usernames Malakadew (talk · contribs), Srilanka short film (talk · contribs) and Srilankan short film (talk · contribs), all now blocked. JohnCD (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Subject is not notable. This article meets the CSD in my opinion but as it's listed here I'll just agree with JohnCD. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 22:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Self-promotion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Should be speedy deleted in my opinion Gary King (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete There's not the kind of third-party coverage of this student filmmaker's work (under either possible spellings of his name) which would add up to signicant coverage, less if one sticks to this particular film. Maybe his work will be notable one day, but that's yet to come. --Sturm 09:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't notable. Axl (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom.--NAHID 21:33, 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. John254 01:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1970s in literature

1970s in literature (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article reads like an essay focused almost completely on American literature. Did a cursory search and didn't see similar types of articles, I don't know if this could be expanded enough to have adequate referencing for worldwide encyclopedic coverage. Awotter (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: Could definitely do with improvement but the subject is encyclopaedic and possibly useful. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 22:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A very useful topic for an encyclopedia. Does need a lot of work though. Wikify and possibly rename to something like "1970s in American literature" should do it.--Hazillow (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Very encyclopedic, there are two ways this article could go. Either the article is expanded to include other types of literature worldwide as the nominator suggests or made specific to american literature and have similar articles for other types of literature. Seddon69 (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- definitely a notable topic -- and remand to the Literature Wikiproject for cleanup, including to figure out whether to expand scope or rename to reflect current content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quasirandom (talk • contribs) 00:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Like these essential Wikipedia essays? 1960s in literature, 1980s in literature, 1990s in literature and 1400s in literature?Awotter (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Don't slip on the WP:WAX. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, I would slap a {{globalize}} on it though. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a notable topic — but the article desperately needs referencing. Axl (talk) 09:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a notable topic on a broad subject, only a portion of which is covered in the article's current form. Missing in-line citations and a SME. I gave a heads up to WikiProject Literature about the AfD nomination and opportunity to comment here. Coffee4me (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, suitable topic, needs work. --Sturm 00:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• keep and improve and use as a model for similar articles for other time periods. Hmains (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Rename English Literature in the 1970s or Literature in English in the 1970s, and add a few more non-Americans. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Needs to be cleaned up and renamed. Could be a useful article once it is. Izzy007 Talk 23:08, 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 nancy ^(talk) 09:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of recordings by The Beatles which feature Rickenbacker guitars

List of recordings by The Beatles which feature Rickenbacker guitars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I love the Beatles, but this is a list of loosely assorted topics. Zero pages link there, but I see no reason why there needs to be a list for song with a certain guitar. Reywas92^Talk 21:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. The Beatles' use of Rickenbacker guitars is certainly notable within the context of their career, but no evidence is offered in this list as to why such use is independently notable, or why the songs in which such instruments are used are collectively notable because of this instrumentation. This seems to be a sort of Gearhead/Beatles-fan-cruft, and unencyclopedic. Also, no sources are cited, and original research is likely ("Gee, that sounds like a Rick--I think I'll add this song to the list."). This sort of information is best covered in The Beatles' instrumentation (insofar as a song has been critically identified as showcasing the use of a particular instrument) and in the individual song articles. Nick Graves (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Or, alternately, compose an article List of Recordings by "Weird Al" Yankovic in which John "Bermuda" Schwartz drums on an accordion case. Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Subject is not notable in itself. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 22:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete All of the above. DJ Clayworth (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Word to Nick Graves. tomasz. 13:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Objectively speaking, no subject is notable in itself unless one chooses to see it as notable. As far as I'm concerned, which Beatles songs feature Rickenbacker guitars is as important as the subject of quasars and Christianity. 14:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.191.9 (talk)

"Objectively speaking, no subject is notable in itself unless one chooses to see it as notable." So there's no such thing as objectivity unless you subjectively accept it? Nice. Anyway, you have every right to consider this topic as notable as quasars, but since it's vastly unlikely anyone else would, that's why we have notability guidelines. tomasz. 15:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Non notable. There is already a list of Beatles songs, nobody care what guitar was used. Izzy007 Talk 23:20, 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 Delete - CSD G3 (Vandalism) by Orangemike (non-admin close). —Travis^talk 19:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrity cricket matches

Celebrity cricket matches (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I believe this is a hoax. I failed to find anything in a web search. The article contains no citations, and nonsense like "Bureaucrats Association for Red Tapism (India)". Many other edits of the author (Restname (talk · contribs)) appear to be vandalism (allegations of homosexuality and the like). Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.
• Delete as hoax. Why do we have to AfD such obvious crap? It doesn't deserve five minutes, let alone five days. DarkAudit (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Meets CSD. This is a hoax that should be deleted on sight. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 22:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax.--Hazillow (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above Surprising that it lasted this long. "Bureaucrats Association for Red Tapism" was an especially clever touch (bureaurcrats, red tape, get it? hardeharhar) Mandsford (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per G3. Blatant hoaxes are now covered under the vandalism speedy tag. DarkAudit (talk) 15:51, 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 as non-notable in her own right nancy ^(talk) 09:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Helen Maria Bayly

Helen Maria Bayly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

"Little appears to be known of Bayly other than in connection to Hamilton." Notability is not inherited, she fails WP:N/WP:BIO by several miles. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per third sentence. Reywas92^Talk 22:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Subject is not notable. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 22:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Famous mathematician's wife, nothing else. Being in the presence of someone coming up with a theory does not confer notability, and much of this is speculative rubbish about their marriage. --Dhartung | Talk 22:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

*Strong keep This article provides information and insight into the personal life of Hamilton, which is almost totally neglected in the article on him. Since he is a world rank mathematician by any standard, this information about his life is worth knowing. Furthermore, I get the impression Helen Bayly may have been an extraordinary person to have lived with him for so many years. He does not seem to have been easy to live with. More information about this relationship is needed, not less. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Withdraw comments. Wanderer57 (talk) 04:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

comment that information, if verifiable, belongs in his article. Hers should be about her, except there isn't any information about her. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:54, 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 gone. (Speedied as a WP:BLP1E.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Al Zimmerman

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

Largely unsourced BLP with questionable notability. I see referenced material, but I do not see an establishment of notability. It leaves me asking "Ok, why is he different from any other criminal?" ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 21:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note appears to have already been deleted. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 22:04, 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linus Airlines

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

An airline with two aircraft operating out of one airport? Is that particularly notable? SGGH ^speak! 21:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, there doesn't appear to be any RS coverage of this Indonesian charter. If someone can find coverage that would substantiate notability, that would help. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment You have to bring your own blanket. Mandsford (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I hear they provide in-flight snacks and live music, but I don't know if I trust their pilots. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Not a notable company. Almost meets CSD. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 22:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete Outside of discussion forums, the best English language coverage I can find is an Asia Africa Intelligence Wire article which says the company secured its business license in 2005, which wouldn't give the company a lot of time to have established notability. Possibly there's more coverage in print media, or in Indonesian sources, but I lack the language skills to asses the latter. --Sturm 08:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The correct name seems to be Linus Airways, which gets a few more press-release type hits in the Google news archive.[1] I'm not sure if there's enough for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • They appear to be claiming the company only started operating in October 2007. That's an even tighter time frame in which to garner coverage. Sifting out the press releases leaves some more stories about leasing more planes. It looks borderline to me. --Sturm 11:34, 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 Snowball Keep, non-admin closure. Neier (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mt. Ephraim, Vermont

Mt. Ephraim, Vermont (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

no real google hits, seems unnotable and unreferenced SGGH ^speak! 21:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Sources added and major geographic features are notable. This article went to AfD 12 minutes after creation? • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Geographical features such as mountains are considered notable. Prodding or nominating an article for deletion so soon after its creation is disruptive to the improvement of articles. This project needs more good editors and this practice only discourages them. --Oakshade (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, per reasons above. Notability is a guideline, not policy. Also, WP:GOOGLEHITS does not superceed secondary sources, ever. MrPrada (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per reasons above, and presumably, being located in Springfield, it's covered by the injunction. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Just because something doesn't have lots of google-hits, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm so frustrated by this trend with Wikipedia editors. Infuriated, actually. Someone deleted a page on my career as a stage magician for this reason, even though I was doing that long before google.Agamus 07:43, 25 February 2008
• shows up in the USGS Geographic Names Information System, so it exists. It doesn't rank terribly high within List of mountains in Vermont, though, since there are higher mountains there. I'd rate this one as a weak keep. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, as it is refenced. Well-sourced articles on geographic features are always A-OK with me. y'am'can (wtf?) 14:06, 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. The arguments for deletion (poor sourcing, months given for improvement) were much stronger in quality and number than the keep arguments (too many nominations) IMO. Mr.Z-man 17:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Command Carrier

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

Non-notable spaceship. Third nomination after this and this AfD (keep and no consensus, was also unsucessfully prodded twice, with one prod2). No improvement since the closing of the first(!) AfD four months ago, and the article still fails to assert any kind of notability. The only sources are a fansite and the TV channel's website, written in the main character's in-universe perspective (i.e. no real-world information), and the channel website has a page for every minor element of the show (i.e. no claim of notability). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prowler (Farscape) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farscape One for similar nonnotable Farscape spacecrafts. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep This is contrary to the spirit of the current injunction. It is also a only a few weeks since the last AFD for this article which is disruptive repeat nomination. At that time, I found some promising sources. Since we have no deadline, a claim of WP:NOEFFORT is still weak. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  If the injunction was intended to refer to all fiction-related articles instead of just episodes and characters, it certainly would have said so. But it doesn't, and arbcom still hasn't explained what it means, so neither you nor I can claim to know what the spirit of the injunction is after all. As for disruption: read the closing rationale of the first AfD from 18 weeks ago and then check the diff I provided. The article widely failed WP:FICT then, and it still does. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked by the injunction this is close enough, and consensus on the talk page and other AfDs is that it is to be interpreted in a general sense. speedy close and possibly relist afterwards. Perhaps by then it may be clearer on a more general basis what is appropriate to delete, and what not. We will not benefit by having large numbers of pending cases to deal with all at once at the close of the arb com. DGG (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  Is this a recommendation or an admin decision? Because if it is the latter, I'd rather see this block seconded by an uninvolved admin who also comes to the conclusion that an injunction about "any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character" in an arbcom case titled "Episodes and characters" extends to nonnotable fictional spaceships. I am however fine with letting this AfD run its course. – sgeureka ^t•c 03:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  Currently, the injunction-related articles are being indefinitely relisted for the duration of the the case, with the idea being that the AfDs should still be debated. They're just not going to be closed until the end of it. -- RoninBK _{T C} 11:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  Even the template says that this article is not injunction-related, because it only refers to episodes and characters. The template should either be reworded or removed, because the only character-spaceship I can think of is Moya (Farscape), who/which is not included in this AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a spaceship we're talking about, an item from a fictional TV series, not a character or episode. You would have to interpret the injunction really broadly to think that this is covered by it. The injunction is not a free ride for all articles having anything to do with television series. The injunction directly covers fictional characters and episodes only. Redfarmer (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete/redirect/merge Take you pick. I can't recall how many different ships there are in Farscape (didn't watch it much), so if this is excessive and we don't need this info at all, fine. If we do, trim it, because what we have here is too much plot without real world context. And no, the arbcom injunction does not apply to this AfD. The arbs wanted to make a poorly worded, poorly thought out injunction that is followed to the letter, so be it. -- Ned Scott 12:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• If the nominator cannot cite any polices this article fails, I must say keep. --Pixelface (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (the latter of which is has been tagged for for 4 months). Any article expansion, it seems, would fail WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:NOT#STATS. No-one even attempted in the last four months to prove that this article can ever meet WP:WAF (which I admit is "just" a guideline). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  If editors can consult the episodes it appears in, the policy on no original research does not apply. The article is more than mere plot summary so WP:NOT#INFO does not apply. This article is not a guidebook. Wikipedia has many articles on frogs but that doesn't make Wikipedia a "frog guide." WP:NOT#STATS also does not apply. --Pixelface (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  It seems like you missed the "would" there. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  Oh, so if someone expanded the article by adding a Reception section that would violate WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOT#GUIDE, and WP:NOT#STATS? --Pixelface (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  My claim of the topic's nonnotability already includes that it is impossible to write a reception section in the first place. If you disagree, prove the opposite. Good luck. No one did/could in the last four months. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep this seems to be a violation of fait accompli where repetitive ProDs and AfDs are used to steamroll those that would like to keep the article because they see it as having potential. Ursasapien (talk) 10:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If I believed this article had potential, I wouldn't be AfDing it. Asserting that this article has potential without any kind of reliable secondary sources (the SCIFI website is just as primary as the show itself), and then voting keep is just the same violation of fait accompli, but can't actually address my concerns. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete — Fictional tv artifacts are not episodes and are not characters; they do not get a free ride on the injunction. Nom has documented why this should be deleted; Do it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:07, 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 ¤ count/logs 21:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as fancruft. Not an episode or a character. Possibly merge with or redirect to Farscape.--Hazillow (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - the fact that no evidence of notability through coverage by reliable, independent sources has been given since the first AfD more than four months ago suggests that the topic is likely not notable. Guest9999 (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Without secondary sources, this has no potential to be more than an in-universe summary. Contributors to a previous deletion discussion referred to coverage revealed by Google Book search, but these seem only to be mentions in plot summaries. EALacey (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The article has been around for 3 years and still can't manage sources besides "scifi.com". I'd say it's pretty much hopeless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as fancruft, per all of the delete !votes above. The ArbCom injunction does not apply in this case. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This seems to be a case where some editors are trying to wear down opposition by overwhelming their objections with a massive number of AfDs and PRODs. Also, please make sure the injunction does not apply, as it would be a major pain to bring this back after deletion. Ursasapien (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm trying to "wear down opposition" by proving what's impossible to prove: that no sources/real-world information exists to make this article pass WP:FICT and WP:WAF. If four months is not enough for editors to fulfill their burden of proof, it'll be six months the next time, ad infinitum if they chose so. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED, notability to a real world audience, consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on this particular work of fiction, plenty of published books on Farscape in guide or analytical format that deal with specicfic aspects of the show and that can and should be used to improve this article, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Andrew Lenahan, but it may be worth redirecting somewhere if there is an appropriate redirect target for this subject. RFerreira (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I wish I could argue with against the application of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED, but I can't, for we face the same arguments in the same circumstances. Four months -- or six months -- can prove nothing about the merits of an obscure subject in a volunteer project, the time scales are longer than that. The lemonperson's links show that there is a reasonable chance of being able to make the article compliant, I cannot in good conscience or some other archaic phrase like that pronounce it irredeemable. --Kizor 15:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete: deleted under snow, then restored for unknown reasons, then speedied under G4 for recreation. I think consensus is safely on the snowy side of delete at this point. Non-admin closure. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The result was deleted by User:SGGH. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Discussion reopened and relisted to generate a more thorough discussion to ensure that a consensus is reached. Guest9999 (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of characters in The Simpsons by MBTI type

List of characters in The Simpsons by MBTI type (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I really don't see why there should be an unreferenced list of the Simpsons characters based on their Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Non-notabilty and/or original research SGGH ^speak! 21:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Heck, even a list based on blood type would be better than this, as at least in a couple cases it's been a plot point. Anyway, delete as original research, indiscriminate information, and, yes, cruft. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete absolute shit. JuJube (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please try and remain civil. Guest9999 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, absolute defecation. JuJube (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research based on the inappropriate assumption that a real-life psychological test is applicable to fictional characters. EALacey (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Without any reliable sources it is impossible to say that this is not 100% original research. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Guest9999 (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Par above. To bad there is no speedy for this. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 21:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I guess this guy wasn't meant to do stand-up comedy. Mandsford (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment as per WP:SNOW I have deleted it. SGGH ^speak! 21:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guest9999 (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Don't know why this was re-listed. Consensus seemed to be reached to me, which is why I never entered the discussion. Delete based on original research and no possibility to be independently sourced and verified as of now (and hopefully, never). Hazillow (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Possibly it was relisted because it was closed with less than an hour of discussion. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per A1. Just a list of names with absolutely no context. DarkAudit (talk) 19:32, 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. Canley (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Prescott Phillips Fay

Samuel Prescott Phillips Fay (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable ancestor of the Bush family. Notability is not inherited. --Michael White^T·C 21:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Does the the Homeland Security Department know that you're doing this? There might be a federal law about deleting the ancestors of the President. Mandsford (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Not a notable subject. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 22:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The article doesn't even mention how he's related (his daughter Harriet Fay (AFD) was the mother of Samuel Prescott Bush). Per this he was an accomplished attorney and judge but best claim to historic notability is participation in the 1820 Massachusetts constitutional convention. --Dhartung | Talk 06:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Wiki is not a storage place for genealogical records. --Veritas (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable in and of himself, and notability isn't inherited through a relationship to a famous relative. If someone wanted to redirect to Bush family, I guess I could live with that. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:01, 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 all articles speedied under G3 as a hoax by User:Orangemike. Non-admin closure. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Staine

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

Information about the band "Staine", its members and discography, appears to be unverifiable. This goes beyond a mere lack of notability, being suggestive of either an entirely unknown band or a hoax. Sturm 20:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because the information on them (members of the Staine or songs/albums produced) is similarly unverifiable:

Danny Little. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Dip (song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Sherbert (song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The phooey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Phooey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Edward Moriarity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Smiley Snack (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Millato (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Pat O'Ryan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete all as probable hoax. I could not find any information on this band that has allegedly sold 25 million albums. ... discospinster _talk 20:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all for fakeosity. Reywas92^Talk 22:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all per noms. Victao lopes (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and add The Phooey to the list also (a redirect). Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 01:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all per all. tomasz. 10:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete All per G3. Blatant hoaxes now fit under the vandalism tag. DarkAudit (talk) 19:33, 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 notability not established. Davewild (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International Monarchist League In Australia

International Monarchist League In Australia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This Australian organization has no significant coverage in secondary or third party reliable source. A google search shows 13 ghits [2], notability unestablished. No hint in google news search [3]. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Should be deleted or should be merged into Monarchy of Australia. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• For those interested, this was one of the articles beloved of these gentlemen. This article may be under an incorrect heading, and is completely useless in its current form. See this article for some RW background. Relata refero (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• comment Ignoring the inappropriateness and incapacity of google on such wonders as this - and if one checks the National Library of Australia catalogue [4] - there is no hit for IMLIA at all - but there a number of items related to MLA - unless the usage of IMLIA is a transposition for MLA - the editor(s) have very limited knowledge of MLA in Australia. In this case wikipedia policies might be one thing - the inventiveness of the editors could be another SatuSuro 11:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Should be Moved to the organisation's correct title at the very least. However, on closer inspection, it appears that this is a pretty fringe organisation at best, and WP:ORG notability requirements might not be satisfied yet. On that grounds, Delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC).

• Delete Fails WP:ORG. Twenty Years 11:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:ORG. The Monarchist League of Australia's website is very firm on the point that "'THE INTERNATIONAL MONARCHIST LEAGUE IN AUSTRALIA LTD' HAS NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER WITH THE AUSTRALIAN MONARCHIST LEAGUE Inc" (capitialisation and emphasis from original) so a merge with the MLA isn't a good idea. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete in view of last two delete comments SatuSuro 11:05, 29 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) 01:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] That's So Raven: The Vision That Changes Everything

That's So Raven: The Vision That Changes Everything (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

It does not comply with the rules for Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and there is little confirmed information; most of this is speculative. _contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 20:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; too early to have any verifiable info on it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as likely hoax. No Google hits at all.--NrDg 20:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• That's So Deleted also look at Wendy Wu 2: Homegoing Warrior and Phil Of The Future: Phil and Keely from the same author. JuJube (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 22:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete likely hoax, see also Further Adventures in Babysitting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete (good one, JuJube). WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 19:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: How long does this have to last? We already have an unanimous consensus on deleting the article, and it has been almost a week. _contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994^TALK 22:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin will get around to it eventually. Nothing links to this article so no real hurry.--NrDg 22:43, 29 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 to delete. Canley (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Måns Andersson

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

Non-notable ancestor of the Bush family. Notability is not inherited. --Michael White^T·C 20:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Easy Delete did nothing notable in life, of interest only to bush genealogists.--Hazillow (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. One of the first European settlers of New Sweden, emigrating to America in 1640. One of the participants in the protest against an early corrupt government in New Sweden. And (if you bother to read the article) not a Bush ancestor, - Nunh-huh 01:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Don't insinuate we haven't read the article. The only reason why this person is in anyway noteworthy is because he could be related to the Bush family. Just because he is "one of the first" European settlers of New Sweden does not make him notable. If that was the case, every single "one of the first" settlers of anywhere should have their own article. Delete. Hazillow (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. If you nominate an article for deletion because you don't like the Bush family on the basis that he's a descendant, and the article indicates that Bush is not a descendant, you may have read the article, but you've failed to comprehend it. Yes, early settlers are at least as notable as, say, an episode of The Family Guy or, say, this sculptor, this album, this band, this meme, this skater, this singer, and this entity. Or any of many of the articles you'll encounter by hitting "random article". We're not here to suppress information, but to impart it. That means some people will think some specific bit isn't important to them. The answer for them is to move on, not to delete what others, at least, will find useful. - Nunh-huh 06:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Whether or not I like the Bush family or whether he is in fact an ancestor has nothing to do with it. Merely signing a petition is unnotable - there are thousands of unimportant Colonials who signed petitions. And, he is not a particularly early settler except in the context of New Sweden, but we can't go having articles for every somewhat early settler of a colony who was otherwise non-notable. --Michael White^T·C 13:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly 22 signed this petition, which led to the Long Finn Rebellion. - Nunh-huh 20:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • • There you go again, not assuming good faith. This man was not notable just because he was an early settler. The only reason why he even has his own article is because he is somehow linked (or was perceived to be at one time) to the Bush family. I don't know about Michael A. White's politics and personally I do not care whether he likes the Bush family or not. It is irrelevant. Mans Andersson is not notable. If you have issue with those articles you linked, please nominate them for deletion. Hazillow (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have no desire to make Wikipedia a less useful resource. We need more information, not less. - Nunh-huh 20:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• 'Keep notable colonial early settler and official. DGG (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Notability not established per WP:BIO. --Veritas (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Nomination is factually worng in points. being a settler that early is notable of itself, plus he became an offical in the colony. Edward321 (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "Inspector of tobacco" [5]? --Michael White^T·C 15:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• So are you saying we should have an article for everyone on this list? --Michael White^T·C 15:46, 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. Non-admin close. Jfire (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth of July (band)

Fourth of July (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't think they meet WP:MUSIC. No third party links. I don't even believe the record label, an indie label, is notable. Delete Undeath (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete -- Does not met WP:Music. --SSman07 (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 22:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Esradekan. dissolve^talk 00:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• It is not clear whether the nominator or the contributors to the discussion made any attempts to find sources for this article. For example. For another example. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia guidelines say that deletion is to be considered only after attempts to find sources have been unsuccessful. Okay, end of lecture. :) I have added references to three articles from The Pitch, one from Pitchfork Media, and one from the Lawrence Journal-World. All are non-trivial mentions, and four of the five are entirely about the band. It's enough for WP:N. Keep. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I see no reason to delete this article. Band is notable and proved as such with cited objective 3rd party sources.Gregg Potts (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets criteria #1 of WP:MUSIC, especially in light of Paul Erik's edits. —C.Fred (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Per Paul Erik. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 04:07, 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. notability is not inherited Mr.Z-man 22:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harrison Ruffin Tyler

Harrison Ruffin Tyler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable grandson of president John Tyler. Notability is not inherited. --Michael White^T·C 20:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete -- Agree with nomonation, not notable. --SSman07 (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep His accomplishments as cofounder of Chem-Treat Inc (which has net sales in excess of $200 million annually) would appear to be notable in and of themselves; I'm presuming that there was no knowledge of chemistry and business passed on to him by President Tyler. Mandsford (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Only real notice taken of him was his $5 million contribution to William and Mary, which isn't enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. --Veritas (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This guy's story is interesting--because of this article I learned a lot more about John Tyler. For philosophical and/or moral reasoning, see "The Originist" by Orson Scott Card, an extension of Asimov's Foundation series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarahemlite (talk • contribs) 01:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Just being the living grandson of an important someone born in the 1700s confers notability, much as being the last surviving veteran confers notability. -LtNOWIS (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Why? Aren't they notable because they're covered substantially in reliable sources? Should we have an article for the last surviving daughters of the Confederacy, the last surviving grandchildren of people born before 1800, etc.? It seems to me that one can't bundle together claims of notability. Either he's notable for being the living grandson of someone born before 1800, which he's not, or he's notable for being the living grandson of a President, which he's not. --Michael White^T·C 04:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, unless somebody produces evidence that this individual has substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete (A7). Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Angerböt

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

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. Google search shows only 35 ghits [6], no significant coverage in secondary or third party reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete either a hoax or hopelessly NN. For example, the article claims an album called "Neon Drum-Beat in A minor" sold 1.2 million copies, yet the title gets no Goole hits besides this article. There's also a myspace account which has 2 friends and ~200 profile views. Update Upgrading to speedy, it was deleted before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angerbot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:22, 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 delete. Mr.Z-man 22:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Guvnor Mickey Francis

The Guvnor Mickey Francis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Deletion nomination. Non-notable professional wrestler. No evidence that this person passes WP:N and other relevent guidelines (either WP:BIO or WP:FICT depending on your point of view). Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

in all fairness, in North West England, Guv is pretty well known, with high attendance shows, and he is currently a double champion. he deserves the page, trust me! JS2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Save Us.JS2 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Despite his supposed celebrity status, searching Google News Archive produces a single article from the Gloucestershire Echo naming him along with several other wrestlers. Confusingly, NewsUK does turn up reviews of a book called Guvnors by one Mickey Francis, but the book is about football hooliganism, the reviews don't say that its author is a wrestler, and the ages of the two men don't match. The wrestler's bio page calls Guvnors his favourite book, so it's possible he took his nickname from the book written by his namesake. EALacey (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

the guvnor is on his way to popularity and should be in mind for the catagory of pro wrestler in england this page was made to help him the UK Pitbulls are 2 wrestlers that work for him and are pro they wrestle in NWE and you were right on all points but please realize that most ppl wanna see this page he deserves one ill take him out of the catagory but i wont delete this please understand he will be pro soon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.171.171 (talk) 18:40, 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. Bearcat (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ccxxii

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. No sources to confirm claims. No notable label. Delete Undeath (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete (or possibly redirect to 222 (number)). No sources cited besides the musician's own website, I can't find any sources using Google or Google News Archive, and the article provides no evidence that he meets any of the other music notability criteria. EALacey (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 22:28, 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. Mr.Z-man 22:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aldo's Hideaway

Aldo's Hideaway (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete No notability established in the article. This source do not cover the subject significantly. A Google search shows 72 Ghits [7], but do not show secondary or third party reliable source with significant coverage by which notability can be established. No hint in Google news search [8]. Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete This former music venue does not appear to have any particular importance to the music scene of the time. It appears non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 21:09, 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. Notability is not inherited, and this article does not demonstrate notability through widespread or significant sourcing. No prejudice against establishment of a redirect to Bush family, as favored by some responders, but consensus is clearly against this article being retained. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obadiah Newcomb Bush

Obadiah Newcomb Bush (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable ancestor of the Bush family. Notability is not inherited. --Michael White^T·C 20:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The first AFD seemed to be in favor of deleting Obadiah but not James. This person is non notable. Undeath (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Though it's an interesting story, he's one of 8 great-great-grandfathers to George H.W. Bush, and one of 32 great-great-great-grandparents of the current president. I believe that the consensus at the 1850 Whig-a-pedia Convention would have been that Obadiah was not notable even among forty-niners. Mandsford (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WHile he has notable decendents, I see nothing here to point to his independant notability. Accidence of productive sexual intercourse is not by itself a notable event. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to Bush family. Not notable per WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited or vice versa. --Veritas (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  This survived a afd discussion on January 10, 2008 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obadiah Newcomb Bush. This should not be discussed a little more than a month later. Americasroof (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment This is to Americasroof. You are wrong. It did not survive the nomination. If it were Obadiah alone, it would have been deleted. The nomination in January had two artices up for deletion and the second of the two was the one that got the keep votes. This articl should be deleted as the other editors above have proven. Undeath (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Response: I tried to get the 1st nominator to unbundle the names exactly to prevent a problem like this. I see that the user who closed the debate did not properly report it on the affected pages and has subsequently been banned. So, this particular nomination is legitimate. Americasroof (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bush family, just like it was when it was brought up for deletion in 2004 (see talk page). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep meets every requirement for notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Oh, and what requirements does it meet? Tell me how it meets the requirements. Undeath (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bush family. The only thing notable about him is that he served as the vice president of the Anti-Slavery Society. We don't need a whole other article to note that. BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think he was the president of the national society, only the Rochester, New York society. At least, the sources I have seen suggest this interpretation. --Dhartung | Talk 06:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. He was a locally prominent merchant but that's about it, if you discount his descendants. We are not a genealogical directory. --Dhartung | Talk 06:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. If someone wanted to redirect it to Bush family, I wouldn't be heartbroken, I guess, but there's not enough meat here for a standalone article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect per the comments made in the Cooper Manning AfD a while back. y'am'can (wtf?) 14:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - This is a toughie. However WP:BIO says A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I see 3,470 google links. I know there's the debate over whether Google links are adequate but it does show there is interest and articles about him. Cited as a source on an article Rochester Democrat and Chronicle.com, President's family has deep roots here, by Lara Becker Liu, February 21, 2005. Thus, he meets the standard there are significant third party articles about him. The article clearly establishes the Bush trait of taking risks sometimes at the expense of his own family. Wikipedia is not a geneology but common sense should dictate a different standard for tracing the history of heads of state. Americasroof (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. But the coverage also has to be non-trivial. GHits is not a good measure; for a search for "Obadiah Newcomb Bush" (2890 results), I looked through the first six pages of results and failed to find any sites that were not either genealogy sites or Wikipedia mirrors. A search for "Obadiah Bush" shows no more than passing reference. --Michael White^T·C 16:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Americasroof, I've worked on Prescott Bush, Samuel Prescott Bush, and even James Smith Bush. They are all notable. I've looked for indicators of better notability for Obadiah and I haven't found them yet. I no longer see any value to keeping this other than genealogical. There are plenty of Bushes who have made their mark on the world, and plenty who haven't (in fact, I know a descendant of S.P. personally; there's quite a range of notability even within one set of siblings). --Dhartung | Talk 06:59, 29 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. Davewild (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Driven Out

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Obvious COI issue too. No third party sources or notable label. Delete Undeath (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - At first, considering the discography of the band and the label I thought perhaps this ensemble was notable - Unfortunately per the nom there is absolutely no second and third party coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. The label is also non-notable [9]. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Impressive looking discography, but no sources cited apart from the band's own website, and no relevant Google or Google News Archive hits for the names of band members. EALacey (talk) 20:40, 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 Withdrawn by nom.--Veritas (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Smith Bush

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

An ancestor of the Bush family but otherwise a non-notable attorney and priest. Notability is not inherited. --Michael White^T·C 20:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Besides being an attorney and a priest, he was also the author of The Evidence of Faith (Houghton Mifflin 1885) and other books about religion. During the late 19th century, he appears to have attained notability in the news media of the day without having famous descendants. Like U.S. Senator Prescott Bush, he had accomplishments other than his progeny. Mandsford (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This survived a afd discussion on January 10, 2008 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obadiah Newcomb Bush. This should not be discussed a little more than a month later. Americasroof (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• The nominator may or may not have been aware of the prior discussion. In any event, when an article is renominated, Wikipedia convention calls for adding a link to the prior discussion(s). Mandsford (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Sources in the article related to what he did in his life, independent of his paternity, establish notability. A nicely tidy bit of 19th century biography, actually, and I am more than a bit puzzled as to why this was brought to AfD. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Solely due to the number of publications (clearly not their quality) which per WP:BIO makes him notable as a writer. Simply being an attorney or clergyman doesn't make him notable, however. --Veritas (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I feel I have provided sufficient sources for independent notability, some of them dated well before any of his descendants entered politics. He was clearly author of at least one notable book that was reviewed by multiple major publications, passing WP:BK. See also George Bush (biblical scholar). Disclosure: I have edited the article extensively. --Dhartung | Talk —Preceding comment was added at 06:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Nomination withdrawn. Apologies, I did not realize there was a recent discussion. Seems he is sufficiently independently notable. --Michael White^T·C 14:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much! The earlier nomination and closing of it was a series of errors -- from the first nominator who bundled it (including bundling with other presidents relatives) -- to the admin who closed the discussion on the first day on the job negelecting to put the notice on the articles and then in turn getting banned from wikipedia altogether. It was certainly an easy mistake to make. It seems to be rare when folks change their minds in these discussions as it takes a lot of courage to do that. Many thanks again! Americasroof (talk) 14:40, 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. Davewild (talk) 11:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harriet Fay

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

Great-grandmother of George H. W. Bush, no claim to notability. Notability is not inherited. --Michael White^T·C 19:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 20:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. --Veritas (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not inherently notable, and notability isn't inherited through proximity to a famous relative. Could redirect to Bush family, but not a deal-breaker either way. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:03, 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. Canley (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Murat Yıldırım

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

Youth player, not yet made his professional debut Matthew_hk tc 19:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I think he no longer plays in holland, apparently returned to turkey, but still no evidence of notability BanRay 23:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 23:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom -- Alexf⁴² 18:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. John Hayes^talk 12:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as it stands. Punkmorten (talk) 19:01, 29 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, which by process results in redirect. Given lack of clear consensus about appropriate destination, will tag accordingly. Please pursue at the appropriate talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Francis Lightfoot Lee II

Francis Lightfoot Lee II (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable individual, son and father of notable individuals Richard Henry Lee and Samuel Philips Lee, respectfully. Notability is not inherited. Propose consideration of merge to Sully (Fairfax County, Virginia). --Michael White^T·C 19:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems like a non-notable member of a notable family, and as such, a good candidate for a redirect. Not sure whether or not Sully would make more sense as a target than the page for his father or son. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:24, 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. Canley (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Prendes

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

Not notable enough for his own article. Kingturtle (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This isn't an article, it's a eulogy--and we're not a memorial. Blueboy96 19:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Non-notable. --Michael White^T·C 20:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:BIO and WP:NOT --Veritas (talk) 13:40, 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 for evident failure of verifiability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Pinkerton Goes to Town

Mr Pinkerton Goes to Town (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Suspected hoax. A German Nazi-era film made in England is quite startling and would be extremely notable and yet there is absolutely nothing I can find for it using either the English or German titles. If not a hoax this should be easy to prove and this nomination withdrawn. Ros0709 (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax. No IMDB entry or mention anywhere but this article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete nothing found Googling. Definitely a hoax because it declares it's a Nazi-era German film. Made in England. Yeah, that's unlikely. Also found nothing when using the German Google. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 19:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Yup, it's a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete A fascinating hoax, with just enough elements that it would sound true if we didn't have ways to verify otherwise. After all, it sounds like the plot of a Nazi-produced film, and there really was a series of "Mr. Pinkerton" books published in the 1930s by David Frome and Zenith Jones Brown. Mandsford (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I appreciate the vigilance of other Wikipedia users in their efforts to expose hoax or inaccurate articles, however this is a genuine piece based upon a recently published book and I have quoted my source material. I am not surprised “Googling” does produce any results. The film did not meet the expectations of the German authorities and received only a short cinematic release. It is worth remembering that the Internet is not the only repository of human knowledge and there is a great deal of fascinating information contained in published sources that has yet to be recorded on the web. I appreciate this type of subject matter does (and should) arouse suspicion, but I reiterate the point this is a genuine article. I would add that nobody has really made any truly valid points and the criticisms made amount to nothing more than suspicion and innuendo. Sarah Thompson99 (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for now. If the cited source (Mary Elizabeth O'Brien, Nazi Cinema as Enchantment) fails to support the film's existence and notability, then delete the article, but the suggestion that it is a hoax cannot be sustained until someone has actually checked the source. EALacey (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• It's a real book, but I find it somewhat odd that there are over 100 google hits recognizing Ms. O'Brien's book (which studies 13 films from the Nazi era) and not a single one of them mentions "Mr. Pinkerton", even though it would strike me as being a fascinating fact. Mandsford (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• This is getting rather silly. Let's look at this in depth. We're expected to believe that:
  • With all the scholarship on Nazi-era propaganda films, including numerous books, documentaries, etc, not one of them mentions this movie's supposed existance.
  • Not even the IMDB lists this, despite including many films farm more obscure than this would be if it existed.
  • A Nazi propaganda film was made in England in the late 30s? Ridiculous. Films of the time were rarely shot on location anyway, and it would have been far simpler safer and cheaper to make British-looking locations on a soundstage rather than move the cast and crew behind enemy lines to shoot an entire feature film! The very idea is ludicrous.
  • Both the claimed director (Wisbar) and supposed star (Frohlich) are very well-known, yet none of their filmographies mentions this film. The silliness of this is on par with believing that Steven Spielberg made an anti-communist propaganda film starring Harrison Ford in the 80s, which everyone has completely forgotten about.
  • Frank Wisbar's wife was Jewish, and he wouldn't have been involved in something anti-semitic... in fact, he left Germany for America in the late 30s, and the Nazis siezed some of his family's property.
  • The article claims Frohlich had a "near-fatal stroke", which is bizarre since he was about 30 at the time, was a well-known leading man and involved with a number of movies that year and the following years, and lived for more than 50 more years (and didn't die of a stroke even then). No sources mention this stroke or health problems around this time.
• All told, this is a pritty hard bratwurst to swallow. While this may not be a WP:BLP issue per se as nobody involved is living, it is essentially accusing two very-real people of anti-semitism, without any solid sources to back it up, when the actual information shows that neither of Wisbar nor Frohlich was friendly toward the Reich. Since it involves real people who have living descendants, it's far from a cute and harmless hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • • Keep This is getting silly, but only because your “research” about the film is limited entirely to on-line sources. You seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge the simple fact that the Internet is a flawed and incomplete repository of information. Dealing with your points in turn I would say the following:
      • The destruction wrought upon Germany during the Second World War was colossal. It is hardly surprising that the cultural and artistic record of Germany during the Nazi period is incomplete.
      • The IMDB is a flawed source of information – one only needs to mention the notorious claim that Christian Slater appeared in a film version of Stig of the Dump.
      • Britain and Germany were not at war in 1937, therefore Britain can not be described as being “behind enemy lines” at that time. Indeed, prior to Hitler’s regnaiging of the 1938 Munich Agreement, the British Government was very keen to come to an understanding with Germany and encouraged cultural links – which the Nazis sadly exploited. In fact it was much cheaper to shoot the film in England rather than build sets in Germany.
      • Wisbar did leave Germany precisely because of what the regime were pushing him into doing – there is speculation that he deliberately botched “Mr Pinkerton Goes to Town”. Frohlich survived his stroke and made a substantial recovery. Your comparison to Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg is simply facile.
      • I have discovered something that is very silly, namely your contributions to Wikipedia. Articles about Nude on the Moon, Wibbly Pig and Axehandle Hound do not add much to the gamut of human knowledge. Your only article about the Second World War relates to a computer game(!) about the North Africa Campaign.
      • The article is genuine and I am not accusing anybody of being anti-Semitic. This is a very "dry" article and as a first time contributor to Wikipedia, I am amazed at the fuss it has provoked. Please buy/borrow and then read the quoted source material. It’s really that simple.Sarah Thompson99 (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Only !vote once please. – sgeureka ^t•c 23:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion that an editor's opinion is without merit because of their own contributions is a personal attack - please keep to the subject of the article itself. I am finding it very difficult to locate a copy of that book in the UK but you are correct in that respect - having access to a copy would help somewhat. Ros0709 (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Starblind spells it out well. If it were real, there would be sources, and the actor allegedly suffering a near-fatal stroke at 30 when he lived another 50 years is the icing on the cake. Edward321 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Starblind did not spell it out well. He made a lot of sloppy, unsubtantiated comments that I dealt with (he thought that Britain was at war with Germany in 1937!). This article is genuine and it is certainly "noteworthy enough" becuase there is a whole list of similar films already on Wikipdia - see the link at the bottom of the article. I will reiterate the point. This article is drawn from a published source. The fact that it is not referenced on other web-sites is irrelevant. What is the purpose of Wikipedia? Is it simply supposed to be an echo-chamber of Google or IMDB? Sarah Thompson99 (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC) — Sarah Thompson99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Again, please do not make the argument personal. Ros0709 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Per the nomination, I would agree the film would undoubtedly be notable - specifically due to the unique status you attribute to it rather than whatever other articles are on Wikipedia already. Comparing against other articles is specifically addressed at WP:WAX. The issue I have is the verifiability - a third party needs to review your source. Ros0709 (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Even if this movie really was published, does it also count as noteworthy enough to be included? Shentino (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep pending a check of the actual source. My university's library has a copy of the O'Brien book that I can check within the next 24 hours. --RLacey (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Any news? Ros0709 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete I've checked the source, and there's a) nothing on p. 193 on the subject, and b) no mention of the film in the index (I've checked the English and German titles). This one does appear to be a hoax.--RLacey (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
      • You have most definitely not read the source material at all. You are a new user and I strongly suspect that RLacey is a Sockpuppet (WP:SOCK) of somebody else who has already contributed to this discussion. It seems rather convenient that you just happen to find a copy of this book in your university library. I have written a genuine article based on a recently published book. You have to ask yourselves who on earth would make this up? Sarah Thompson99 (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
        • This is the third time you have resorted to personal attacks. Please desist. I note that RLacey first contributed to Wikipedia in 2005 which does not, IMO, make him a new user. Ros0709 (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. no sources Mr.Z-man 22:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wasi

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

Individual fails WP:BIO notability criteria. Cursory g-search reveals nothing in terms of coverage from multiple third party reliable sources. Most of the results themselves are mirrors of the Wikipedia pages discussing this individual. Hence, I feel the article merits deletion. ITAQALLAH 18:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ITAQALLAH 18:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep: May I request you to not to delete this article instead place a tag of incompletion, meanwhile as you can see that I am working on it, hopefully will get back with some sources soon.--سگِ گوھرشاہی 06:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsaa (talk • contribs)

Keep:I am also working on this and it is a part of my project of His Holiness Sayyedna Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi.--Asikhi (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone (either of the users above?) can present reliable third-party sources that assert WP:BIO notability. — Scientizzle 16:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment please note that Iamsaa (talk · contribs) is the "office bearer of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam" and Asikhi (talk · contribs) is the "Press & Information Secretary" of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam. Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam is the religious movement founded by this guy and currently run by the subject of the article. WP:COI anyone? — Scientizzle 16:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like it ^_^. In any case, assertion of notability must be based upon proofs outlined here. Without such, making a case for keeping this article is unlikely to be successful. ITAQALLAH 22:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: He is the president of an International Movement isn't it enough to argue that he is notable enough to have an article with his name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconkhe (talk • contribs) 09:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In a word, no. If there are no independent reliable sources upon which to create an encyclopedic biography, there is nothing to keep. Running an organization of questionable notability isn't a sufficiently strong claim to override WP:BLP and WP:N concerns. — Scientizzle 22:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, and currently there are no sources to verify that this individual is notable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of diplomats

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

Addition of names to list is arbitrary. List is too long and could grow unwieldy. Better to leave identification of notable diplomats to categories created for this purpose such as Category:Diplomats. Mikebar (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It doesn't seem to offer any of the advantages discussed at WP:CLN. The category seems enough, in my opinion - Weebiloobil (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete One of those cases where a category does the job better-- yes, I know, a category doesn't separate them by nation, but as Flamond said, a diplomat's nationality transcends national boundaries. Mandsford (talk) 20:46, 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. As original research with no sources. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts Without a Thinker

Thoughts Without a Thinker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability is unclear, and article is written as a criticism, containing several statements that are biased. The article violates WP:NPOV and is not being worked on for improvement. PKT (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It seems to be a review for a NN book. Which violates WP:N anyhow Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 18:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete -- Reads like a book review, also seems to fail WP:NOR. --SSman07 (talk) 20:37, 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 defaulting to Keep, disagreement over whether his notability is established. Davewild (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad Abdul Haque

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

Non notable politician. Was found only in a couple of reliable sources that mentioned him in the passing. Very trivial. The claim of 12 years of political career becomes more non notable considering there is no claim of participating in an election, even at the lowest level. A face in the crowd. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NN. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep He is a political figure of major political party The Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Aside the sources used in article, others sources ([10], [11], [12]) might be applicable to establish his notability.--NAHID 21:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. A mention in a one-liner wild rumor, citation as a reporter's witness of an event that doesn't involve the subject, part of a long list of equally non-notable people as a part of those present in gathering... very trivial, very non-notable, and falls very short of WP:NN and WP:BIO criterion. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep He's been a leader in the political party for 12 years, not an elected official. He doesn't appear to be notable as a politician, but there are enough references to make him notable as a person. I think that this is what happens because of being a politician in Bangladesh: if he were a similar politician in a developed country, there would likely be plenty of references for him. Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, there ARE plenty of references for the politicians of Bangladesh who are truly notable. Unfortunately, the subject is not one of them. --Ragib (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Yes, Bangladesh politicians get way more coverage in news media than anything else. And, any politician worth his or her salt would have much more coverage than a couple of trivial mentions that doesn't even meet the Wikiepdia notability criterion. His only claim to fame seems to be his role as politician. Failing that there is almost no way he can be considered "notable as a person". Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. As per above. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Never held a public office and never own an election, all sources seem to be trivial. Arman ^(Talk) 02:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Arman. The subject has not held any public office. There are thousands of petty local politicians in Bangladesh, and like the rest of them, the subject fails WP:N. --Ragib (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. One of Bangladesh's major newspapers doesn't consider him non-notable. The Daily Star featured a long article about him only two days ago - far more than a passing mention. This is on top of his being leader of a major potitical party in a region with a population of over 8 million for 12 years. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally have received similar press coverage (an article), would that make myself notable and wiki-worthy? Also, let me remind you about Wikipedia policies on notability, quoting from WP:N (people)

• Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[7]
• Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[6] Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.
• Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone.

Let's stick to policies on notability. If you claim every person receiving a mention in a newsreport, please go ahead and start one article on each person mentioned in today's New York Times. You'd get thousands of equally Non-notable persons in no time. --Ragib (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I am sticking to guidelines on notability. He is not just an unelected candidate for political office: he meets the requirement that you quoted as a major local political figure who has received significant press coverage. If you have received similar coverage then point me to it and I'll write an article about you. If this was an American or British politician who had been leader of one of the Republican, Democrat, Conservative or Labour parties for 12 years in a region with a population of 8 million we wouldn't dream of deleting the article. Why shouldn't we give the same coverage to an equivalent Bangladeshi politician? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the subject the leader of Sylhet District, Sylhet city, or Sylhet Division? It seems to me that he's the leader of the Sylhet city which is a small part of Sylhet division BNP. Even within Bangladeshi politics, this person is utterly non-notable. Perhaps you do not get this point because of your unfamiliarity with Bangladeshi politics ... the subject is does not get any particular non-trivial coverage in local news media. (you mentioned one report on the subject, I can provide 2 to 3 reports in national media on any other equally non-notable person (including myself), and just a few news reports do not make a non-elected politician notable in their own right.) You can verify the notability of the subject within Bangladesh by asking this question to any other wikipedian from Bangladesh. --Ragib (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually we were both wrong. He wasn't party leader in Sylhet Division or Sylhet city; he was, according to the reference I cited above, the leader in Sylhet District, which has a similar population to Wales. As a UK resident I can't believe that any leader of a major political party in Wales would be considered non-notable, so I would apply the same standard to Sylhet Disctrict. Whether you or any other Bangladeshi Wikipedian has heard of him is irrelevant. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to be able to find out about things you don't know about already. Do you think that I've heard of all of the pop groups, TV characters, footballers and politicians from the UK who have articles in Wikipedia? Of course not, but that doesn't mean than I say that their articles should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". Please apply the policy. --Ragib (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's apply the guideline, but taking into account the word just. He was not just those things, he was leader for 12 years of a major political party (for much of that time Bangladesh's governing party) in a district with a population of over 2.5 million. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the claim that the subject was "leader for 12 years of a major political party" is the main claim of subject's notability. If that is the case, do we have a reliable 3rd party source that states that the subject was an "influential", or "major" or "active" leader of BNP for 12 years? Unfortunately I don't see one. What we have here is a Wikipedia article probably written by the subject or someone close to the subject which claims that the subject was a an influential leader for Sylhet district for last 12 years and uses a small number of references that have merely trivial mention of the subject. The very source that Phil has provided rather proves that he is leading one of the three factions of BNP and the central command of BNP is yet to recognize the faction led by the subject as the legitimate faction. Being the President of District BNP really doesn't mean much in a situation where we have several groups claiming themselveds the legitimate faction of BNP. If the claim were that the subject held a public office, it would be verifiable from public records, even if there were no newspaper coverage. But unfortunately a claim to be an " influential leader" is not verifiable in such way and hence unless substantiated with solid 3rd party references should fail WP:VER. The only verifiable fact about the subject is that he is candidate for an upcoming Mayor election - which by itself is not enough to assert notability of the subject. Arman ^(Talk) 10:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

He may be leading just one of the factions now, but he was previously the recognised leader of the district party before it split. See the sources which I provided below for confirmation. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hear hear, agreed with Phil Bridger--NAHID 23:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(inserted for clarity) Is this cheering a piece of argument or evidence? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is very interesting. I see that the proposition that he was "leader of a major political party in a major geographical area for 12 years" is being used as a major point of argument. I completely agree to the "major political party" and "major geographical area" bits, may be the "12 years" thing is somewhat acceptable as well... but, what about this "leader" bit? Was he a leader for 12 years? He doesn't seem old enough to be that. And, what sort of a leader is he? Political parties have all kinds of leaders, most pretty non notable. At the risk of being accused of lawyering, I'd like to ask - is there any non-trivial mention (if not a clarification) of the 12-year leader thing from an independent reliable source available? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You ask what sort of a leader he is. According to the Daily Star he was president of the district party.[13] [14] [15] [16] I can't find anything online to back up the 12 years, but that is already sourced to the Bangladesh Observer in the article. There is no requirement that sources need to be online. I don't understand the comment about his age. Are you saying that he couldn't possibly have become district BNP president at about 40? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wondered if he'd been a district president or whatever since the age of 28, i.e. for 12 years. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't understand what you are saying. He was born in 1954, and seems to have been district president until very recently. That means that if he was president for 12 years he would have been about 40 when he started in that position. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• keep as a sylhety i think an article on the subject should not be deleted. as it gained rational attention on systematic bias last time by the sylhety people living abroad. as far as i am concern, he is quite popular, and is considered as one of the back bone figures who worked to establish BNP in sylhet division. i therefore believe, an article on such person should not be deleted merely because of less online recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.69 (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• keep thank you aditya for drawing the attention.. well, it seems quite interesting.. my personal opinion is not to delete the article, as we, the sylheti people consider him well notable. however, i would like to draw attention in terms of the non-elected bit. the procedure of being the distric president is not un-democratic. all the councilors (members of BNP entitled to vote on party's enternal decissions, i.e. electing leaders among the aprty) called upon in every four year (i guess) and elect the president and other executive members of the committee. thats you can say it as an election, indeed. moreover, the subject was elected (presumebly) three times by thousands of councilors. its not that small thing to ignore. and last time as long i can remember there was an dispute on the distric committee election and one died due to it. so, we couls say he was elected through the election that attract enormous public awareness. thus, please do not apply the policy. Syl007 (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I have gone through the article again, and there seems to be absolutely no improvement. One tall claim has been made that has not been verified at all (the in-line citation says nothing to support the claim!). The peacock words and weasel words so abundantly used are not helping either. The ManabJamin, a political tabloid, is not a reliable source at all (though the cite isn't about the subject's claim to fame). On top of that, I can't believe (without supporting cites) the claim made by Syl007 that BNP elects its "leaders" internally. Given the concern shown by international community and warnings by the current Bangladesh government in installing some democracy into Bangladesh political parties (including BNP), it seems a bit far fetched. Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, whether the BNP selects its leaders democratically or not is irrelevant - the fact is that M. A. Haque was the district president, as confirmed in the Daily Star references above. When you say that the in-line citation given doesn't support the claim that he was leader for over 12 years, does that mean that you have checked the 9 September 2003 edition of the Bangladesh Observer? If so could you please let us know what says about him? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Does it become irrelevant when put forward as a delete argument? Or is it as irrelevant when put forward as a keep argument? Please, read through the only non-trivial cite you have dug up. It pretty well tells the a story of a short-lived presidency earned through bickering between factions and quickly lost to to the same. Looks like one of a million Bangladeshi "political leaders" that wash up to newspaper pages with political tides. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether it is used as a keep or as a delete argument. Undemocratically appointed politicians can be just as notable or unnotable as their democratically elected counterparts. Please answer my question. Did you actually check the Bangladesh Observer source cited in the article? I'm not asking that out of awkwardness - I'd like to know whether or not it actually supports the 12 year claim, because that has a bearing on the subject's notability. Unless it has been checked and found to be wrong we should assume good faith on the part of the editor who added the citation and take it at face value. I hold no particlular truck for Mr Haque - I very much doubt if I would vote for him (or any of his BNP rivals for that matter) if I lived in Sylhet. I just want to apply the same standards of inclusion to Bangladeshi subjects as we do for American or British ones. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(reduced indent) Yep. But, for fairness' sake let me check it once more (not easy fumbling through a newspaper archive, not for me, alas). That would a day or two (even if the AfD is close by then, it can't be rushed, alas again). For the irrelevant part and the Sylheti "nationalism", I was never responding to you. But, you see, aggressive irrationality may get a bit irritating at times. Sometimes I feel that to be my undoing, but what the heck... it is irritating as I stand. Alas! Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• ofcourse keep i absolutely agree with phil bridger. it seems like the article was proposed for deleation merely for the sake of the believe of two bangladeshi wikipedians, not for the sake of wikipedia's notable defination.

one of those who claim himself as notable as m a haque.. joke of the day! hahaa.. if you are so, then mr , you are notable enough to deserve a wikipedia article on you. this man lead at least 3/4 million bnp supporter of sylhet vicinity for more than 12 years. how come you ignore this? another, who i believe resided in the US, who point him as a face in the crowd. however, miss, i can see from that picture, he is leading the crowd of thousands of people along with the prime minister and ministers, rather being in the crowd.. to sum-up, i would say, i agree with the point that phil bridger arose, he is a distinct leader of a political party, and leading a huge number of political supporters. we should not, therefore, delete just for the personal opinion of two bangladeshi wikipedian.. if we do so, we should then also consider the opinion of sylhety wikipedians as well, what i presume is complete diffrent from their thought.Angel eye222 (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User's only edit in Wikipedia. Possible sockpuppet. --Ragib (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's really sad to see a Sylheti stand against Bangladesh. What are you trying to imply? Bangladeshis hate Sylhetis, and therefore the notability of all things Sylheti should be left to Sylhetis? Aren't Sylhetis included in the list of Bangladeshis, at least yet? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• keep i have edited the article, have a look, it might helps. however, just to infrom you ADITYA, what the current government is doing, is only to keep-away the corrupted politicans. as we peopl are informed. its not the duty of the government neither the election commission to put their nose in terms of a party's internal affairs. the government and elcetion commission also mention this on their press note several times. though this is not relevent, let me say, khaleda zia, or sheikh hasina were the elected chair persons of their parties, they were not acquiring post merely bacause of their family's history. as a matter of fact, its regretful that the constituion of those political parties are not that democratic, as it allows the chairperson to act like a dictator. thank you.. Syl007 (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The government is wrong, the international community is wrong, the top two leaders of the top two parties are wrong... only MA Haque is right!!! Not much of an argument there. May it indeed is a fact that he was never elected to the post he occupied for a short time, but gained the short lived opportunity as part of favoritism inside the party. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a duplicate "keep" as Syl007 has already commented "keep" above". --Ragib (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

with due respect my friend, i never said government is wrong, nor the international community and the top leaders. what i simply tried to convey is, your believe about the action of current government is not so appropriate, as the government per se said said several times they are not going take any step to implement democracy inside the political parties, its their own business to do so. and i do not think 12 years time is a 'short' period of time'. and apologies for put keep again, it was a mistake.Syl007 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Ethics of a government's operations shouldn't ideally be a consideration in a Wikipedia deletion discussion. All that I had to say is that the parties in Bangladesh has no electoral system internally, as testified by the current government (including the election commission) and the international community (including UN observers), and the convention is to accept these authorities as reliable. It isn't important if they are making comments beyond their scope (the point is they have already done so, within their scope of not). Therefore an election inside the party can't be an argument, unless supported by ample references. On top of that, it has already been shown that the issue (raised so forcefully by you) of an internal election is not even relevant. Verification of the 12 years thing is on its way already (though Wikipedia policy clearly puts the onus on the editor who put the information there, but someone who advocates a delete doesn't necessarily have to be unfriendly).

• Keep - the idea that "not inherently notable" is the same as "inherently non-notable" is probably my biggest pet peeve surrounding the interpretation of Wikipedia's notability guidelines generally and WP:BIO specifically. Per WP:N, any subject that has received non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources is notable. This person has. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Looks like a very good guideline to go by. Makes me half willing to retract my nominationation alreadt. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Again, per WP:N, "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." I do not see how a few small articles on the politics of Sylhet count as "in depth", "significant press coverage". Note that, the same articles are not focusing on Haque as a politician, rather are commentaries on the politics of Sylhet (involving multiple other local politicians). A cursory look at any Bangladeshi newspaper any day shows thousands of other equally non-notable local politicans being mentioned ... do they also deserve a Wikipedia bio? Mere mention or a few paragraphs on a news article does not mean "significant press coverage". --Ragib (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

How little should be considered as "significant press coverage"? May be one major report in a reliable newspaper that repeats the name or the subject three/four times, with at least once/twice a bit of commentary attached. Or may be not. Also a few unverified cites that includes a majorly distrusted tabloid may fall a bit short on the standards. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)::

* ’’’ comment ’’’. Seems, we have now changed our position regarding to our opposition of the subject’s notability. We now involving a new discussion whether or not this person attract appropriate media coverage, i.e. internet news sites.

From the discussion above, i reasonably assume, we have sufficient ground to consider the subject as notable; which is the most radical concern. I would like to draw an attention in terms of his internet coverage; that the numbers of internet users are relatively few in Bangladesh. Probably around 2-5% of total population use internet frequently. Nonetheless, the Bangladeshi newspaper, i.e. daily star presumably does not have enormous archive on the internet, which leads to an end to delete most of its report from the web. For instance, i read an article (on daily star) on the subject last week regarding to the potential candidates of coming election. However, could not find it anymore. Therefore, in my opinion, I do not think the lack of internet sourcing manifest him as non notable. I would also like to add, there is no such definition of reliable newspapers. The news media of Bangladesh are experiencing their freedom of expression, and is no bounded by any political parties. Thus, we should not define ‘reliability of newspapers’, in terms of personal taste of believe. Manabzamin is the most powerful tabloid in the country, in terms of circulation. And seems like quite popular back in Bangladesh, and therefore, could be regarded as a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel eye222 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 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. Band appears non-notable per the criteria —αlεx•mullεr 18:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dhira

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

Non notable band, vanity page, and advertisement. Ism schism (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable subject, advertisement with no independent reliable sources. Ism schism (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I fixed the PRI link so the article is no longer completely without reliable sources. I created this article after listening to the PRI segment about them, and I thought it would be good to have an article; I based it almost completely on the NPR report. They get quite a few Google hits, but there's admittedly not a whole lot of news coverage on them. --TexasDex ★ 06:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:15, 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, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 17:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete non notable--Hazillow (talk) 20:26, 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. Mr.Z-man 22:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath

Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Some assertions of notability made in the article, but no reliable sources cited, and a Google search shows up little that is authoritative. Arguably fails to meet criteria for a biography. Content could be merged to Syro-Malankara Catholic Church with a redirect? Likely conflict of interest, given username of prime editor. I am also nominating the following related page because it covers similar topics and could likewise be merged:

Salvific Law (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Presumably the name is a transliteration and could be spelled variously, making the Google test less useful than usual. --Dweller (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• comment The author is an accepted writer among the kerala people and not only among Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuzhinapurath (talk • contribs)

Dr. Philip Chempakassery has reviewed the book Salvific Law in the following words, "Salvific Law is a precious book on law highlighting the fact the law has a salvific nature. The author Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath, who is specialist in Oriental Canon Law had his studies in Pontifical Oriental Institute, Rome. He publishes his research findings for the degree of Doctrate in Canonical studies in this volume. ...The author has written these pages after a hair-spliting perusal of all that has been written on the subject. This fact is proved by the long bibliography given at the end of the book. ...And he concludes that,"The supreme function of Canon Law is to help the Christian faithful to lead a life, which is oriented towards the ultimate communion with God."^[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuzhinapurath (talk • contribs) 05:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• keep for now He seems notable and as stated earlier a google search will not always be useful in cases like this. Citations should be requested for the assertions of notability. JASpencer (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am confused, because as far as I understand the author of that article and the subject appear to be one person! We should ask for an expert in the Eastern Catholic Christianity about the importance of that matter. Generally I think, that because he has written these books he has his place in Wikipedia, but he has to focus his contributions not only on his life experience and work, but on items that are of greater interest - the history and the rites of the Syro-Malankaran Catholic Church maybe,its structure :dioceses, bishops, schools and churches, etc. This is one very old Church with long and interesting history and life and it is not enough presented in the Wikipedia, I think.Drjmarkov (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep for now : I would suggesting keeping this page as the notability of the person is shown by a no of references. The same name issue might have happened due to another family member using the id with the same family name. With additions from other wikipedians , we may improve the article , especially from the newly formed Indian Christianity Wikiproject partipants. Any unverifiable stuff may b removed to Wikify the article - Tinucherian (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Keep : Reasons are given below as Comment by me. - Tinucherian (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. This article has been almost entirely written by an editor with the same name as the subject. He has now confirmed to me (editing from an IP address!) that he is in fact the same person [17] although he sometimes writes about himself in the third person on talk pages etc. I have suggested that there is a conflict of interest problem here, but it seems to me this may be too widespread to be solved by a simple AfD. I still feel this article, when judged against WP:BIO, fails to meet the criteria. But this is not the usual 'vanity' editor and if the consensus is that, despite his eccentric editing style, the article should stay I will continue to try and help him conform to Wikipedia style. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Despite the conflict of interest and the writing style I think Wikipedia is better off with this article. It's not like we have too many articles about Syrian clerics. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - Article seems to be a clear copyright violation of another article here. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  The article you have listed is a copy from wikipedia under the GNU Free Documentation License. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  Duh. I are so shtupid. Sorry about that. Removing tag now. In any event, though, still Delete based on now independent assertions of notability. John Carter (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  John - if you're saying delete, you presumably mean "...no independent assertions..." above? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Avinesh Jose  T  10:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - The article includes unpublished facts and the references are self published that fails WP:RS. The notability is also not established as no sources address the person directly in this case per WP:N. Can anyone provide at least a single reliable source? We understand that there are many priests and church leaders who are notable in some extend in the society where they preach and write some booklets we appreciate their service also. But it doesn’t mean that we need to merely create articles for them. It is exempted to people who are well-known by their contributions, work, etc. --Avinesh Jose  T  05:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep - The article is notable because the subject of the article is not only a priest but also a well known writer. His writings are recognized by the University of Kerala. And the former students of the university has qualified him a well known writer on the discussion page of the article. The soources are rliable because some of them carrying ISBN. None of the sources are selfpublished. The publishers include the University of Kerala, Carmel International Publishing House. So the arguments of Avinesh Jose are not factual. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 17:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete His writing might be notable, but there is no way of telling from the sources. Nor can I figure out how to tell is his essays are student work, or scholarly. His one book is actually a PhD thesis. I think this has to wait until he is more firmly established. DGG (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• COMMENT : His essay in Bhasha Thilakam (ISBN-81-86397-13-2) is NOT a mere student work .It is an University Publication also co-written by many eminent writers of Kerala.It is an anthology of poems and literary essays published by the University of Kerala in 1998. It is consisted of poems by Kumaranasan, Ulloor S. Parameswara Iyer, Vallathol Narayana Menon, G. Sankara Kurup, Edasseri Govindan Nair, Vyloppilli Sreedhara Menon, Changampuzha Krishna Pillai, Vayalar Ramavarma, O.N.V. Kurup, Sugatha Kumari, and literary essays by Ullattil Govindhankutti Nair, N.V. Krishna Warrier, M. K. Sanu, Dr. D. Benjamin, Dr. George Onakkur, K.S. Ravikumar, Seeri, Achyuthsankar S. Nair, Kozhikodan, Nitya Chaitanya Yati, S. Chandrasekharan Nair. - Tinucherian (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - (reply to Simon Cheakkanal) If your comment is factual, please explain the following: Do you have any evidences of his writings that are recognized by the university of Kerala? Is there any source available in the University of Kerala website about him or his title? Is there any additional-independent-reliable source about his writings? (as you said if he is well-known, I assume it should be there) Could you again explain the ISBN link you mentioned? I’ve again checked (even carmel publsiher's website though we can't accept since it is self-pblished kind) it but did not find anything useful. Please explain. As you have further commented, we can’t agree with talk page comments (by anonymous ip) unless references are furnished. --Avinesh Jose  T  08:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I tried a search of his book Daivajanam on
  http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/61451322?tab=holdings
  

It says the book is archived in the following libraries :-
1. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN Austin.
2. University of Chicago Chicago.
3. Library of Congress Washington, DC.
4. University of Pennsylvania Libraries Philadelphia, PA United States
- Tinucherian (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Subject of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, meets WP:BIO. MrPrada (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tinucherian (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting opinions from Christianity Project members - Tinucherian (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment :It is easier to delete an article than to create one. Every time an article is deleted, the contributions that were made to it are lost. Wikipedia administrators can access the information in deleted articles, but they are not necessarily experts on the article's topic. Once an article is deleted, its appropriateness can no longer be evaluated by the general public.

A contributor who writes a poor article on a notable topic is likely to be inexperienced. If their first efforts are deleted, they may be discouraged and refrain from creating further articles, or even editing. Everyone starts somewhere. I strongly suggest to keep this article and improve it with contributions from many people. - Tinucherian (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment :I had a look at this article earlier today. I suppose we could keep it, but it needs serious, serious editing. As it exists now it is very poorly written. I will try to work on it, but I suspect it will be significantly reduced in length. Dgf32 (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep for now and ask for an expert My confusion is bigger, because when I went to the WorldCat link, provided up in this page there appeared other similar name as the author of the book Daivajanam - Tōmas Kul̲ināppuram. I just don't know what to say, it may be because of the transliteration from Malayam language, but... Drjmarkov (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC).Changed to KeepDrjmarkov (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment : That may be right.It may have messed up due to transliteration. I searched for his other book Salvific law : the salvific character of law: an historical overview on worldcat http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/63146776?tab=holdings and found that it is archived in Washington Research Library Consortium Washington, DC also. - Tinucherian (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment based on scanned images sent by author. Author has sent me two scanned images. One is that a collection of prose selections compiled & approved by Kerala University named ‘Bhashathilakom’. There is a section (chapter kind) in that ‘Paalam thettunna koumaram' (The youth that derails) is written by Fr. thomas Kuzhinapurath. There is a brief intro about the author i.e Fr. Thomas Kuzhanapurath in the same chapter. According to the intro, Fr. Thomas has written some articles on social & cultural issues. He served as student editor for a magazine called ‘relegion & thoughts’, wrote a book ‘daivaganam’ (gods people). At present he is serving as a chancellor of Trivandrum archdiocese. If it meets WP guidelines of keeping (weak?) it, the entire WP article has to be re-written & remove all WP:OR from it. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose  T  05:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment on scanned images Rightly pointed out the signifance of the article. It is I, Simon Cheakkanal who scanned and sent on demand of Avinesh Jose, those pages of the book published by the University of Kerala. And I am not the author of the book.Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think user:DGG already commented about this book. --Avinesh Jose  T  08:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

comment I've been asked by Avineshjose to comment on the material in the images. Only he really doubted they existed--I said before, and can only say again, that the material cited, taken at its full value, does not come anywhere near notability for a writer. An essay in a collection published by a university does not make it, and everything else together in the bio as given there does not make it either. What would be notability in a poet is third party reviews of his work, in reliable independent published sources, outside his own university. But what also needs to be evaluated for notability is ecclesiastical position. But chancellor of an archdiocese, though very impressive sounding, is an administrative not leadership position, a great deal less than archbishop. If he becomes a bishop he would probably then be considered notable. The very small number of libraries holding the book does not make for notability. Normally it would do just the opposite, except for the country of publication and the topic only very few US holdings would be expected even if it is important. Looking again, the assertions in the article are those typically made of those not really notable: when he sent a copy of his book to the pope (though he was not able to arrange a personal audience to present it), he got a formal thank you note ; he attended eminent schools; he studied under eminent people; he was a student editor. Changed from weak delete to Delete. DGG (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

comment The University of Kerala is secular university of Kerala Government. The Governor of Kerala State is its chancellor. Its is very rare that a work of a ctholic priest was selected for the syllabus of the University of Kerala. May be the first event in the long history of the University of Kerala. The relationship of Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath is only that he was a student of it. The notability and usefullness of the work made selection board to select the article for the predegree syllabus.

I have consulted with Fr. Thomas and he said to me that he met the Pope personally in 2000. He said he had the photoraph of the event with him. So I disagree with the arguments of the user DGG. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviews- Many Reviews on Fr. Thomas Kuzhinapurath's book Daivajanam were published in various journals. A few of them are the following:

1. Dr. Geevaghese Panicker, "Jeevithasparsiyaaya Daivasasthram", Aikyadeepam, July 1998, p.34.

2. M. V. Thomas, "Daivajana Jeevithathinte Vilayiruthal", Deepika Daily, July 26, 1998.

3. Johnson Karoor, "Yesuvilekku Nayikkunna Daivasasthram", Talent, July, 1998, pp. 429-431.

4. Daniel Poovannathil, "Uthamamaya Vayananubhavam", Christava Kahalam, March, 2002, p. 58. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achasu (talk • contribs) 06:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments : The above said Deepika Daily is a reputed ,trusted and 121 year old histroy Indian newspaper in Malayalam language . Seehttp://www.deepikaglobal.com/about.asp - Tinucherian (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see the Deepika news also. If anyone has it, please scan & send me a copy of it? If it meets notability, I will edit my comment based on it. --Avinesh Jose  T  04:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep for now - This article suffers from several; problems (1) it began as an autobiography (which is discouraged) (2) whether the subject is sufficiently notable. Except that he has published a couple of books in more than minimal sized editions, he seems to be serving in a very ordinary priestly ministry. My view is that he is on the borderline of notability, in which case the best solution is probably to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment based on Deepika book review. I’ve checked the image sent by Simon now. It looks like a two column review of the combined articles of Father Thomas Kuzhinapurath, reviewed by a person M V Thomas published by Deepika newspaper. The column looks like an announcement / review that I don’t know. It says the book ‘god’s people’ has three sections of Jesus Christ’s congregation, Christ-as a human being and social issues etc. According to the reviewer that Father Thomas has done a good job by authoring this book. --Avinesh Jose  T  04:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

*Delete Based on what I found [18] one of the subject's most notable works appears to be a 36 page term paper. The article appears to be a self-promoting autobiography. I'm going to try to edit the article to improve it, but no matter how much I am able to improve it, I still maintaint that the subject is not notable and that the article should be delete. Dgf32 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have significantly edited the article, and I think I have improved its quality significantly.

• Weak Keep After reviewing all the citations and other evidence, it seems that the subject of this article is very borderline for notability criteria. Erring on the side of caution, I suggest keeping it. Dgf32 (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nathan Winneke

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

Seems not notible- no scrces apart from an MTV article. Complaints that it was written by the artist on the talk page (from anon) although no proof RT | Talk 17:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• OK, delete. I have made some edits to this article before (can't remember now what led me to it) and I believe the article history makes it extremely likely that it was written by the artist himself, e.g. the text removed here. - Fayenatic (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Removal of controversial material doesn't necessarily signify a COI... see the guidlelines at WP:BLP. SingCal 01:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't understand your point. It was me, an independent editor, who removed the controversial material. That material had been placed by the article's creator Fauxone who appears on strong internal evidence to be Nathan Winneke.
    • WP:BLP requires biographical articles to adhere strictly to Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and No original research. This article clearly fails to comply with those policies. I tagged it long ago as unreferenced; that tag was removed by Superchavo, apparently also an interested party, leading to its nomination for deletion. I am generally an inclusionist, but this one has to go. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • My bad. I thought that you were pointing to the removal of the text as a COI indicator. That's what I get for not reading histories well enough; apologies! Delete SingCal 18:40, 29 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 SNOW Keep John Vandenberg (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Table dance

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

Article cites no sources establishing notability—Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs)

• Speedy Keep article has been around since 2004 with many edits. Movies from Flashdance to Coyote Ugly sparked phenomenons of table top dancing bars. Article may need more sources, but per WP:CITE sources aren't required unless topics are controversial or questionable Tabletop dancing from stripping to college girls is not really controversial, especially when movies have been made. This is a case of "I don't like the way the article looks, so I will delete it instead of allowing sourcing to happen naturally through time." --David Shankbone 17:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a great advert for WP if this is the best that could be achieved since 2004 for such an apparently notable term. Delete unless a radical proper rewrite is instigated. MickMacNee (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't use deletion nominations to improve writing for articles. --David Shankbone 17:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We do if the current content of the article is non-notable. MickMacNee (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. We do if the topic is non-notable. The current content may be deficient, but if the notability of the topic is uncontroversial then that's a content issue, not an AFD issue. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep; current content seems notable enough, and the topic certainly is notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

How can it 'seem notable' when no assertion of notability is made? Similarly, how is the topic notable? MickMacNee (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There are nine hits on "table dance" on the recent news of news.google.com. You could try [19] for just one. Between 2003 and 2006, news.google.com has over 600 hits. How is the subject not notable?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Does the article reflect that notability? The one link you provide shows a clear no. MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a surmountable problem. The references exist, they just need to be added. That means the topic is notable, but the article needs to be fixed. And we don't delete articles on notable topics just because no one has added references yet. --Ig8887 (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - article subject is notable. matt91486 (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -Could use some work, but like it or not this is part of the culture Change to Speedy Keep as references have been added which addresses the phrasing of the nomination Mstuczynski (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Very obvious keep. The subject of the article, is clearly notable. SQL^{Query me!} 20:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep with addition of references demonstrating notability, but it is very obviously notable--Hazillow (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Mick, if all of us guys could take you with us to a strip club so we could all get drunk and watch table dances, you'd appreciate the subject more. I agree that the article itself needs some better editing. Did anyone catch the part where the German "table dance" at Oktoberfest "is not of an erotic nature"? That's laugh-out-loud dumb. Mandsford (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for the info, suffice to say, I know what the term means, and I see what the article says, hence the quite obvious candidacy for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I see sufficient [20] results for table dancing to indicate to me that this subject could be covered. If not an independent article, merge/redirect to erotic dancing. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, have the google results presented got precisely anything to do with the contents of this article?MickMacNee (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Content of the article is irrelevant. Subject is the concern I have, and I'd have no objection to adding a {{rewrite}} tag to the current content. Content is actually a clean-up issue in this case, and as such, it isn't an AFD matter. Why? Because a quick search indicates plenty of sources for potential content. Thus the initial rationale isn't a concern. If you want to find sources, there's plenty out there. Take the opportunity to fix a problem rather than rushing to deletion. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The worst aspect of WP. The article is nonsense, but just because the title means something IRL, it has to be kept regardless. MickMacNee (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the best aspect of Wikipedia: The community is essentially telling you that all the time, effort and keystrokes you spent to try and contract the encyclopedia, information that in the month of January alone over 3,700 people wanted to read about on our site, you could have found more than enough resources to improve an article. Instead, you sought to delete it In February alone 5,000 people went to this article and the month is not even over. That is the problem with deletionism: they forget that what makes Wikipedia relevant is people actually finding an article they were curious about.--David Shankbone 21:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

Are those stats all humans, and not just google et al? Besides, since when do page hits equal notability? MickMacNee (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

They don't. But this subject being notable does indicate it. matt91486 (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I say we all take Mick out for a night at Hogs & Heifers. He'll be placing the photograph of it on his User page the next day! lol. --David Shankbone 22:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. Creating a wiki article on the back of it though, I don't think so. MickMacNee (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? I don't think the article is nonsense. Nonsense would be something else entirely. The content of the article is coherent and understandable. The only problem is the one with sources. Which does seem to be addressable so it's not a great problem. You're certainly not convincing me that I'm wrong to say that there is potential for an article. You'd have been better off suggesting a redirect, that I could have gotten behind. But instead, you're saying this is the worst aspect of Wikipedia. Do you really think I find that persuasive? It's not. It's an argument unrelated to the article at hand, and quite a bit of hyperbole. And if there's anything that's a bad aspect of Wikipedia, it's that kind of behavior. You may wish to rethink your statements. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep; please do not attempt to delete things that need only expansion, sourcing, and improvement. We have a deletion criterion for things that are too short and undeveloped to have any value at all but that's clearly not the case here. Antandrus (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, lack of references is a surmountable problem as notability of the term is not in doubt. This nomination borders on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Ig8887 (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Has anyone noticed that Dhartung added references? Unless the nom wishes to challenge these, I believe that he no longer has an argument for deletion and should withdraw. Mstuczynski (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable topic, longtime article. Possible slight case of WP:OSTRICH in the nomination. Can always use expansion, improvement, but just as viable an article as, say, Lap dance. 23skidoo (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I wrote most of the article on Go-Go dancing. I think this article is just as worthy of inclusion. Keraunos (talk) 02:13, 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. Empty list created by blocked user. No content to merge to Sri Lanka Broadcasting CorporationKim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Radio drama Actors in Sri Lanka

List of Radio drama Actors in Sri Lanka (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

At the moment an unpopulated list, mostly redlinks. ukexpat (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation and go from there Mandsford (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - this is part of a determined campaign of self-promotion. Note that the only blue-link is was Malaka Dewapriya, since deleted via an AfD, and that the originator of this page is Malakadew (talk · contribs). His article was started on 19 Feb 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 user:Malakadew has taken up the running, and has also been blocked as a sock. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 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. I'm closing this early, as the article is radically changed, the nom is withdrawn as a result, and the only deletes are based on the initial version with conditions that have been met. No point in taking up more time over it. Tyrenius (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Art in Ruins

Art in Ruins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

An art group. The problem with the article is that it is completely made up of quotations from magazines and news articles and as such fails at asserting notability. Has been speedied before, but was rejected this time around. Was rejected as a speedy. Prod was removed by author after simply sticking some weblinks and not putting any new prose in at all. JuJube (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability can be asserted. -- Roleplayer (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of original writing. Soxred93 | talk bot 17:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete If some better sources can be found, the article cleaned up and wikified, it would be a nice article. Do away with the quotes. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 06:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It's astonishing that having references from verifiable external sources is now considered grounds for deletion (!). This article is a useful reference for anyone investigating the artworld in the UK and should remain. If this needs wikifying I can do it, but it will be difficult to wikify it if it gets deleted... --Rob Myers (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

1. The quotes of which the article is composed were some of those used by the artists in their exhibition 'Double Take" at the Windows Gallery Prague in 2000. Each quote appeared as lasertext on the window in front of a piece of the artist's work, thus instantly mediating the exhibition with the disembodied voices of critics. The artists play with the voice of the artist and that of the critic. The article does the same thing. In effect the article attempts to capture the way they play with the legitimising authority of 'normal' articles. 2. The image comes from the artists. It has been used as a postcard and is this in the public domain. It is too low res. to reproduce. HannahThistle (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• • So you're basically acknowledging that the whole article is ripped off from other people but that that's the point? Wikipedia does not take artistic stands, thank you. JuJube (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. See note below I appreciate the sincerity of the submitter, but she has not taken in the comments about Wikipedia policies and the issue of copyright violation. I'd change my vote if a policy-compliant article could be written by the end of the AfD. Also I'd be willing to suggest userfying for further improvement if the submitter agreed to take on the task of writing a normal article. I considered doing so myself but the Google results are too confusing (the top hit for 'Art in Ruins' is a group in Providence, Rhode Island). There are 14 external links at the bottom of the article but they are written in a hip, insider style that makes statements of plain fact hard to deduce. Hannah's statement about the rights for the image are incorrect; distribution as a postcard does not put the image in the public domain. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Texts have been published in numerous publications and exhibitions made internationally (see the CV published at http://www.lcca.lv/projekti/utopija/art_in_ruins/ ). Art in Ruins never copyrighted the name and it was used by the group in New York who set up around 2000 to highlight buildings of architectural note threatened with demolition. Most of the links at the end were added for verifying 'notability' and give details of notable exhibitions and publications in which Art in Ruins participated, particularly in UK, Ukraine and Austria. Regarding the postcard what would be the best way to make it usable in the article? HannahThistle (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I am concerned that Hannah may be planning to write a jokey, indirect article that says as little as possible about the group in plain terms. A jokey article is unlikely to survive on Wikipedia. If we leave the field others will come across it and insist on rewriting it in a clear, common-sense way. So I'm asking Hannah if she's willing to have a normal, prosaic article on this. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The article I have submitted is serious as is the work of Art in Ruins. I would say there is no such thing as common sense and I don't consider it appropriate to be prosaic. I have however added two introductory paragraphs written in authorial voice, if that helps, to contextualise the article. HannahThistle (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment might possibly be notable but needs complete rewriting. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject matter is notable. The article needs to be wikified. It needs information on founders and location in introductory paragraphs (vs. buried in someone's quote), and intro paragraphs need in-line citation. It needs to explain how, in a google search world, it's been effected by not copyrighting its name. It needs to summarize or incorporate quotes within the context of an encyclopedic article, not leave a string of stand-alones. Collaborative editing by SME, such as at WikiProject Visual Arts, would remove the "article ownership" tone. Coffee4me (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Did a complete rewrite. I submitted this AfD to the list over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts hoping to attract some experts, and I am glad to see more participants in the AfD. I'll change my vote to Keep if a reasonably-rewritten version (like the one I just checked in) is still standing at the end of the process. Somebody still needs to fix the copyright on the picture or the image police will come by and delete it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• My rewrite edit-conflicted with yours! I've merged the results. All the deletes need to look again, but I would say their objections have now been met and it looks like a reasonable stub. Tyrenius (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• A great improvement, in my opinion. I'm changing my vote to Keep based on Tyrenius' version. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep after rewrite(s). I note " For a while there was a real buzz around Art In Ruins, they signed to the Gimpel Fils Gallery in the West End and it looked like their brand of critical post modernism was about to storm the institution of art and give it a real shake up. Unfortunately most historical traces of their influence are currently obliterated by the less interesting work produced by what became known as Young British Art ...." from this. Just an (friend0 and artist's blog, but I think they are notable. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, Stewart Home is a recognised writer on art. Tyrenius (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Looks way better now. I withdraw my nom cheerfully. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• For future reference speedy criterion G11 would work with the article as first written: "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Tyrenius (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• The reason we are having this AfD is because I declined the A7 speedy nomination. Tyrenius, are you saying that I should have let the speedy go through? EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 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. John254 01:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Washington

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

No claim to notability other than being the great-grandfather of George Washington. Notability is not inherited. --Michael White^T·C 16:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge into Lawrence Washington (1602-1655)#Washington family sketch. -- Roleplayer (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Change decision to keep following evidence of notability. -- Roleplayer (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. John Washington is not only notable for his being the great-grandfather of George Washington, but in addition he was the Washington family patriarch who brought the family to the Americas and purchased the land that would incorporate Mount Vernon, Pope's Creek, and Woodlawn Plantation. I feel that the article could grow and that it should be given a chance to do so. The notability is here, the content isn't. Let's keep it and continue adding content. --Caponer (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Caponer, based on John having emigrated from Britain to America, founding the Washington family, and acquiring a large amount of land in Virginia. Mandsford (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Plenty of people came to America and bought land. We are still left with his notability only being because a descendant came to be famous. DJ Clayworth (talk) 05:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, served in the House of Burgesses, passes WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 07:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment and as it turns out, passes WP:MILMOS#NOTE as well. In fact, he was partly responsible for a notorious incident in the history of Virginia and Maryland. --Dhartung | Talk 17:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Having been in the legislature, he is unquestionably notable by our established practices. (He would be anyway--early settlers who are the founders of important estates are notable. yes , there are a few hundred from Virginia--but why does that make them less notable? We should have them all. -- In practice, most holders of major estates will have been in the colony legislative body at some time or other in the career, anyway. DGG (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Solely due to his time in the House of Burgesses. Otherwise, he wouldn't be notable per WP:BIO.--Veritas (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I think he's over the bar, due in part to his political service. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep/Nomination withdrawn. Dhartung has expanded this article to provide evidence of him meeting WP:BIO because of his service in the Virginia House of Burgesses. --Michael White^T·C 18:43, 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. An individual is not inherently notable for being the grandfather of someone who is, but is evaluated for his own contributions and treatment in reliable secondary sourcing. Consensus is that, regardless of the relationship between Hutchinson and Jackson, there is insufficient notability demonstrated for Hutchinson to have his own article. If Hutchinson can be demonstrated to be the grandfather of Jackson, reference to him may be appropriate in existing articles related to that president. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Francis Cyrus Hobart Hutchinson

Francis Cyrus Hobart Hutchinson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability is not inherited. This person's only claim to notability is being the grandfather of Andrew Jackson and the grandson of John Hutchinson (Colonel). Reputable genealogical sources do not support him being Jackson's grandfather, and in any case, he would never have met Jackson, so he did not have any influence on him. --Michael White^T·C 16:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with Elizabeth Hutchinson Jackson -- Roleplayer (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Unfortunately, in addition to his lack of notability, that he is her father is genealogically dubious, as I have provided information on at Talk:Elizabeth Hutchinson Jackson. --Michael White^T·C 16:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• In that case delete unless reputable sources can be found, otherwise merge as above. -- Roleplayer (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - Clearly, Non notable. Canyouhearmenow —Preceding comment was added at 17:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete (or merge thsi somewhere, please). Gotta agree with the Mikester on this one; I recall that Andrew Jackson pretty well grew up not knowing his ancestors. Mandsford (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)nn
• Strong Keep As user Michael A. White removed my links from the article. He is clearly a Vandal. Now listen up Andrew Jacksons aunts, all knew Andrew Jackson. Also they all knew who their father was and their Grandfather. I,am one of his mothers sisters direct kin. DNA has already proven this. Andrew Jackson grew up on the Crawford plantation. It was owned by Robert Crawford. Whos brother lived there as well. Two of his aunts married Leslie,s. this is a known fact. The link Michael A. White removed proved this. The link Michael A. White supplied, i have searched, it leads nowhere. The site Micheal A. White removed was the offical site of the Charlotte Mecklenberg library. I think they know a little more about this then Michael.

• Comment The site (link) contained no mention of Francis Cyrus Hobart Hutchinson, so it was appropriate to remove it as a reference. The only mention of Andrew Jackson's mother is the sentence "The maiden names of my grandmother and sisters (Mrs. Jackson, Mrs. McCamie, and Mrs. Crawford) were Hutchison." --Michael White^T·C 14:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I have checked and Ancestory.com has Francis Hutchinson listed, as the parent of Elizabeth Hutchinson Jackson. Several of his kin are listed. I tried looking for the people Michael White claimed were listed as kin to Andrew Jackson the vast majority listed Francis Hutchinson. Only one or two was listed that was different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Better1 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment What record set at Ancestry.com did you use? -- Roleplayer (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Just look under Francis or Cyrus Hutchinson. You might have to be a member to look it up. It was under the Wells & Scott Genealogy (USA & South Africa) for one. Also under the Moody Family Genealogy, by Jeannie Potter. Plus to many more to list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Better1 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - are these the family trees that have been listed by Ancestry members? If they are, they are not peer reviewed prior to listing so they cannot be listed as viable references. -- Roleplayer (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment and in any case, he would have died in Ireland and never met Jackson, thus not being notable.--Michael White^T·C 14:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This user's only edits are to this AfD. --Michael White^T·C 14:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Sockpuppetry case opened: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Randall_O —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael A. White (talk • contribs) 15:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My sister joined last night As anyone can do. This was not a Sock poppet. As Michael White is reporting. Also i forgot to sign my own post. Also Michael has accused me of not writing any articles. When in fact i have written several. 66.19.114.161 (talk) 08:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Randall O

• Comment It should be noted that pbs.org has done 3 documentary programs on Andrew Jackson, and 2 mentioned his aristocratic ancestry. All were done in the last twenty years. I think they did plenty of research. Randall O (talk) 10:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Randall O

• In any case, he's not notable. And I would think that the preeminent presidential genealogy scholar should be given more weight than a PBS documentary, which you haven't even provided the actual source for. --Michael White^T·C 13:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• I did not accuse you of not writing any articles, I accuesd your "sister" of that, which she hasn't.--Michael White^T·C 13:52, 29 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. Davewild (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PH-DVD

PH-DVD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No references have shown up other than ones related to the initial press release in 2006. "Polarizonics Corp" has made no SEC filings since 2006, implying that they are no longer active, and I can find no corporate web page. Given all this, it's probably safe to say that this technology is never going to see the light of day - that is, assuming it ever existed in the first place. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete. My original inkling in the original AfD was that this was a hoax, given the proximity to April Fools' day, and I still believe that to be true. There are still no reliable sources anywhere out there... the only sources cited in the previous AfD (i.e., the basis of the previous keep) were unreliable by Wikipedia standards... that is, bloggish news aggregation type sites (Engadget, etc.) that based their report solely on the press release put forth by the company. There do not appear to be any WP:RS based on investigative journalism by a news source... just rehashes of "Polarizonics says they're creating something called PH-DVD... here's what they say it is" and so on. (It's almost as if I were to put out a press release saying "I'm creating something" and having it picked up... don't give me any ideas! :P) One would think that something so "revolutionary" would have attracted more attention from the technology community. That assumes, however, that this is real. Sure, the company may exist, they may be working on something, etc., but Wikipedia is not a primary source of information, and there is nothing else of value out there (reliable sources, for one) on which to base a legitimate article. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The fact that Polarizonics filed a few SEC documents suggests that, if it's a hoax, it's a very thorough one. Still doesn't mean it's a notable hoax (or non-hoax), though. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why this didn't get transcluded by the creator of the AfD, so here it is... --Kinu ^t/_c 16:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete no real coverage besides a slight blip in a handful of blogs in 2006... oddly just in time for April Fool's Day, not that I'm suggesting anything by that, of course. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - I feel this is blatant WP:Hoax. Canyouhearmenow 17:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Could be a hoax, but either way, it's still far from meeting WP:CORP. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Believe it or not, it has Google hits from outside of Wikipedia, so it's not a hoax (for once), but none of it helps the fact that it still fails WP:CORP. No Google News hits since October 2006, all of them blogs except for a sentence mention in a few British newspapers. But they're just the briefest of brief mentions Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 20:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Not to be confused with Ph.D-VD, which doctoral students sometimes get from unsafe research. Mandsford (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. While I'm glad this isn't a hoax it still fails WP:CORP and related guidelines. RFerreira (talk) 19:09, 29 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. east.718 at 23:04, March 1, 2008

[edit] Delegable proxy

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

Judging by the events of Wikipedia:Delegable proxy and the fact that Google has only 2,000 results, this appears to be a neologism, and person that started the article is apparently trying to make it popular. This topic is not notable, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Superm401 - Talk 16:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

See User:Abd (initial creator of article), User:Ron Duvall (an editor of it), User:Sarsaparilla (another editor), and User:Absidy. From what I understand, these four accounts are at most two people. User:Abd explicitly says he is an inventor of delegable proxy, which is a strong indication of vanity and original research. Superm401 - Talk 16:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that User:Sarsaparilla, User:Ron Duvall, and User:Absidy are all the same person. (He has explicitly stated the link between the accounts). Mangojuice^talk 16:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. I'm just wondering if User:Abd is the same as well. A CheckUser may be in order, but that's a separate issue. Superm401 - Talk 16:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ron Duvall is in progress. Jehochman ^Talk 16:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Abd came back Unrelated. It appears to be a different user, or at least a different computer. Jehochman ^Talk 17:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Johochman. Usually we see checkuser when there is abusive editing, or other activity prohibited for multiple accounts to engage in, or suspicion of block evasion. It is not normally used to troll for socks unless there is some necessity, and, since this has come up before, it might be necessary to go through RFC. I don't mind being checkusered at all, though. Frankly, I'm glad to see unreasonable suspicion dispelled. I do wonder, though, at all the wikidrama here. Obviously some deep nerve is being touched. Absidy/Duvall/Sarsaparilla (openly and clearly the same user, a serial accountant, literally) is a bit of a trickster, the class clown; but he's not actually disruptive (unless a weird sense of humor is disruptive; I say "weird" though, in fact, I find it funny, I was practically rolling on the floor last night when I saw his proxy solicitations. (Is that a violation of policy? Maybe it should be; but it isn't, yet.) However, he's attracting what I consider disruption (i.e., attempts to shut down community discussion trying to work on file formats and procedures through useless argument), to be sure, he's kind of a honey trap for those who love wikidrama. --Abd (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. You're crazy, mon. Dozens of people have come up with delegable proxy independently, although it has many names (e.g. liquid democracy). It even showed up on Jimbo's talk page. Absidy (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, actually "liquid democracy" and "delegable proxy" are different, and Jimbo used neither term. Both, taken together, they would have a grand total of 3,750 Google hits. It is a clear neologism. But, thanks for attacking my sanity. That almost persuades me, but not quite. Superm401 - Talk 16:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Experts in the field (such as they are, this is a very new field) consider them variations on the same theme. The basic concept is that each member of an organization may name a "proxy," "representative," "advisor," the key feature being that this is voluntary, not required, and is a free choice. This, by itself is proxy democracy; delegable proxy arises when a representative of a representative is consider to represent all the "clients," direct and indirect. See the bank example below; they don't use the term "delegable proxy," but the "representation" is transitive. Demoex didn't use the term "proxy" but in the original implementation by Mikael Nordfors (I think it's described in a published article, by the way), the "advisor" designation was delegable, and it was only abandoned because they thought of it as a software thing, the software was buggy, and they were offered new software free. Apparently it worked, according to reports from the people involved. The name of an article may be a neologism, but we have an article here, stubbornly called Instant-runoff voting in spite of the fact that (1) there is no occurrence of the name prior to 1996, (2) the method has other names of greater currency world-wide and historically in the U.S., and (3) IRV is a political invention by a U.S. political organization FairVote, and the very name promotes a POV. I'm not arguing OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; rather, that the name of an article is entirely different from the notability of the topic. It is a normal editorial issue. If the topic is notable, and if reliable sources exist, the name would not be grounds for AfD, it would be grounds for, perhaps, merge, perhaps with Delegated voting, which is the general European name for Delegable Proxy.--Abd (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You admit is a "very new field", and given the number of Google hits, I think you may even be understating it. Wikipedia does not cover neologisms. When/if it develops into a more "popular" field/policy, an article can be created under the dominant term. Superm401 - Talk 21:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I can't !vote on this one, because, as one of the many inventors of this concept, and, in particular, as the probable coiner of the term "delegable proxy," taken up by others such as James Armytage-Green, though it is merely descriptive: I have a Conflict of Interest. One might note that my participation in this article, beyond creating the stub initially, as been non-existent, except in Talk. I did, indeed, start the article in 2005, when I was basically clueless, under the title Liquid democracy, which, at the time, was certainly a more notable term. However, if you look at the contributions, you will see that many others expanded the article extensively. I'll comment more, perhaps, bringing in some examples that might show notability -- if I can find them --, but I'm really not attached to this article remaining here, it's up to the community to decide. For the moment, see Common Good Bank. This is a serious bank project (lots of local support) that happens to have been started without my knowledge, a few miles from my home. I saw the link someone added to the article; I called them, and they had raised, when I called, I was told, (six months ago?) $50,000 of the $100,000 they need as seed money to start the bank, scheduled to open in 2009 at this point, and they have, I think, hired staff already. They were aware of my work and that of others such as Armytage-Green. This is happening, whether Wikipedia has an article on it or not.--Abd (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well once it has 'happened' and there is a lot of coverage in reliable sources, there will be no objection to an article I'm sure. But while it is still 'happening' with little coverage in reliable sources, well then I'd have to say no... Nil Einne (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless better sources are found. I expected that beyond all the WP:PRX hubbub, the idea behind it was a well-established idea academically. But when I started looking into it, I note that the article here cites many reliable sources in describing related concepts (like democracy or proxy voting) but has no reliable sources about its use, its history, or the terminology. Similarly, most arguments about its merits and the shortcomings of other systems are not coming from reliable sources. Abd Lomax's post on a mailing list is cited, a personal website (Ant's eye view) is cited, the "election methods interest group" (a Yahoo! group) is cited, but no publications. As such, this whole thing looks like WP:OR to me. But I'm not sure -- is it just that these are shortcomings in the article, or is there really a WP:NEO and WP:N kind of problem here. I would think this should be kept, if some clearly reliable sources are presented that establish that this is a well-recognized idea and goes by the name "delegable proxy". But without that I think we should delete per WP:N and WP:NEO. Mangojuice^talk 17:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a class of editors here who create article cores which don't meet WP:RS with the sources provided, and who simply write what they know; this often includes experts in the field, or at least knowledgeable students or amateurs. Then other editors come along and cut back what can't be reliably sourced (or, sometimes, attributed as notable opinions). Clearly the editor who worked furiously on this article recently is in this class. It's part of the mix which makes Wikipedia function. If he were to edit war over unsourced material, it would be offensive and, indeed, could be the basis for a block. I saw what was being put into the article and wondered about it myself, i.e., "Is he going to get away with this?" However, this is a very long-term Wikipedian, if all the beads are strung together, and it seems he knows what he is doing. He is definitely WP:BOLD; remember all the advice we give to newcomers, be bold, you can't break Wikipedia, if you think it will improve the encyclopedia, do it, etc., etc. If the article is POV or unsourced, fix it. If it isn't notable, in your opinion, AfD it, as has happened. If it is notable but beyond what can be verifiably put in, prune it. But don't mix the two issues, they are truly independent. As to the name, look at Talk for the article. There was discussion there of what to name the "technology." The article name had been Liquid Democracy, but that name has not been widely used for discussion in depth. Delegable Proxy is the name most widely used among those interested in election methods, including some academics, and it is a straight, literal naming, accurately descriptive; to my knowledge there is no other name that describes the essential "invention" involved as efficiently. I've called it other names myself, such as "fractal democracy." But none of the other names convey it the idea in a nutshell.

Now, as to the Election Methods Interest Group. There is a yahoogroup that EMIG uses for communication, but EMIG itself is a Free Association, and, as such, is not controlled by any individual or "moderator," nor is it dependent upon any single communication node. EMIG members can -- and do -- directly communicate with each other. Right now, as a nascent organization, EMIG is only notable as being a delegable proxy organization; it was designed as such to attract expert participation, which has worked to a degree. Again, whether or not any of this belongs in the article is a matter about which I'm COI, and I'm doubly COI here: I founded EMIG and do moderate (though not exclusively) the Yahoogroup.--Abd (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I searched Google Scholar and Google Books for this topic, and found very few hits along any of these lines. I may be wrong but I'm getting the idea that this whole idea is a proposal of yours that has been made informally and never been written about in a formal way. If I'm wrong, I think the article should be kept. If I'm right, though, it's WP:OR to have an article here before anything has been written reliably on this subject. Abd - you should know - is this the subject of any reliable sources? Peer-reviewed papers? Books? Are there other names we should look for that people have used in the past? Mangojuice^talk 21:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, if an article needs better sources, it can be fixed. If kept, the article needs to be cleaned up, and stubified. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This appears to be an inappropriate content fork of proxy voting. This is a novel variation of proxy voting, but its merits are completely unexamined and thus Mangojuice's comment above that this is original research are correct. If this has been the direct subject of real peer reviewed papers or non-self published books, I'm of course willing to reconsider, but that doesn't appear to be the case. It's certainly not acceptable for an article to cite its own talk page as a source, so agree with Jossi that if kept stubbing back to only the most reliable material will be necessary. Delegable proxy is an intriguing enough proposal, but until it catches on, we shouldn't be promoting novel theories with the Wiki. --JayHenry (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I worried about that reference to the Talk page myself! That was BOLD! Now, should I have reverted it out? I was tempted, but, remember, I'm COI for this article. Contrary to what is implied above, I had nothing to do with editing this article, except for comments in Talk and the original creation as Liquid democracy in 2005. See my earliest contributions. Had I known policy then, I'd have not done that, but, as you can see, I was a raw newbie, it took me some years to figure out how to sign Talk page comments. I thought Wikipedia should have an article on the topic, and I still think so. How long an article and what is in it is a different matter. I'll say this much: I found the article useful, as put together by Sarsaparilla/Duvall, I learned a lot from it and from the references (beyond my own comments in Talk! -- shaking head in wonder). Has anyone looked at that bank? Now, is there a local newspaper article on this? I've never thought to look. There is a lot of ... well, "steaming pile of crap" comes unbidden to my mind ... appearing about this whole affair, some very misleading comments being made by admins here and there, and it will all come out in the wash, I'm told. Sarsaparilla/Duvall/Absidy (et al) has done some fairly spectacular things. Most of you probably won't understand, but there are some people who seed ideas in ways that make them unforgettable. I'm not sure he's even aware of it, but he is one of these. Wikipedia will be poorer without him. He is not the energy behind the wikidrama here, he is a catalyst, or a lightning rod being blamed for lightning. Indef blocked, with a warning and no violation beyond that and a request to admins to not unblock? My, my, my. This is going to be interesting; not what I'd have chosen at all. I just wanted some nice quiet proxy files and tables. And, guess what? We have the proxy files and tables, more than one design, and all the code, and ... well, watch. --Abd (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC) <-- see, I've actually learned something here!

Abd, I sincerely appreciate that you took the time to politely respond, but my argument for deletion isn't based off the things you touched upon in your comment. I don't know who Sarsaparilla/Duvall/Absidy is, nor do I think it's germane to this page here. I apologize if you got caught up in drama that's not of your making. But that's not why I'm commenting. The problem I have is that there don't appear to be reliable sources about this topic and thus the page is original research. --JayHenry (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. The author(s) which are possibly all the same person have been regularly engaging in contentious editing. This article is a fork of:
• Proxy voting
• Vote trading
• Representational faithfulness

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd urge Zenwhat to actually read what has been written above, including the reference to checkuser. Checkuser revealed the obvious, Sarsaparilla/Ron Duvall/Absidy is a serial accountant (literally). Which is legal here, unless there is double voting. (Holding a conversation between socks would be prohibited, but he didn't do that; rather, for whatever reason, he dropped one account and started another, but made no effort to conceal the connections, which were, uh, blatant. Checkuser also showed what was obvious: I'm not that user. As to contentious editing, them's fighting words around here! What contentious editing? I just went through an RfA, one of Sarsaparilla's stunts, and contentious editing was hardly an issue (I've been involved with real sock puppets, mostly James Salsman and, yes, they have had lots of complaints about me. Pot kettle black is enough said at this point as to the contentious editing charge. Now, what does the identity of authors and their alleged editing style have to do with article notability and verifiability? As to forks, I don't agree, this is a different topic having nothing to do with Vote trading, something to do with proxy voting -- it is a form of it --, and I have no clue about Representational faithfulness, I haven't looked at that article. Is it notable? In any case, if it's a fork, then merge might be appropriate....--Abd (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm extensively commenting here because my identity, edit history, and COI status have been made an issue in some misleading ways, plus I'm probably the world's best-known advocate and expert on the topic, though James Armytage-Green gets more citations (I think he'd agree about me, though). This means that (1) I can advise and (2) I can't edit in any contentious way about this, not in article space, anyway, nor can I vote in this AfD. But I can comment. So I am. Please note, I'm not arguing for keep or delete, I'm merely attempting to increase the level of information about the topic and its notability and surrounding issues here. I meant what I said: it is up to the community to decide if this article should be here.--Abd (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are the worlds foremost expert on this issue, then it should not be difficult for you to identify where it can be found in reliable sources. If these can't be produced, then there is no argument to contradict labeling this article as covering a non-notable subject. That isn't to say the subject is without merit, it may be. But Wikipedia is for describing, not for promoting. Avruch ^T 04:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Per my comment immediately above. Avruch ^T 04:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as original research, because (A) none of the sources, mostly email posts and wiki pages, meet the reliable source criteria, and (B) primary author claims to be inventor, indicating vanity OR. SBPrakash (talk) 07:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Changing to neutral: some of the sources, such as the Aardvark Daily may be borderline-reliable. SBPrakash (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Just to note: the Aardvark Daily source does talk about proxies, and does talk about an individual retracting the proxy authority by voting on their own. However, it doesn't talk at all about delegable proxies - proxies designating their own proxies, and so on, or any of this stuff about proxy chains or proxy loops. Mangojuice^talk 14:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I already knew that many !voters in AfDs don't read the evidence presented; so I'm not surprised at the error. I created, almost three years ago, a stub, Liquid democracy which I did not invent. I am one of possibly dozens of independent inventors of Delegable Proxy, but I have not edited the article since that stub. So "vanity" is preposterous. Had it been "vanity," I'd have named the article Delegable proxy" not Liquid democracy, a name which I never liked much.

As to sources, perhaps I'll be able to come back with something, there are theoretical possibilities, but the academics involved in this have not, so far, published, to my knowledge, beyond a paper on Demoex, which, I believe, is in the sources for the article. And I might be able to find a newspaper account for the bank cited above.... we'll see. I may be the worlds foremost expert on certain aspects of this, but I'm also a very small part of the very large community of people (probably hundreds or more) working on this and similar ideas, and I don't know but a small part of what they have done, quite a bit of it is not in English, I think. I don't personally care one way or the other if this article is deleted, this is not, for me, a political cause and I have no personal need to reach large numbers of people. I understand WP:RS and WP:V fairly well, and was not surprised to see this AfD. But ... Liquid democracy. Delegated voting. I did not invent those names. I did not invent Demoex, the Swedish political party. I have no idea what exists, for example, in the Swedish press on Demoex. Go to the Election Methods mailing list and ask about delegable proxy. They will know immediately what you are talking about. (I know you can't use that as a source, though, in fact, this would be closer to how traditional encyclopedias worked, by asking experts). One of the best known general election experts, a non-academic but widely respected, Mike Ossipoff, once wrote. I think it was on the EM list, that the best election method was, of course, delegable proxy, but it wasn't practical. Why? Well, because people won't try it. He is, of course, right, until something else happens. (He was thinking of political application for public elections, something I'm not even proposing, because it isn't necessary.)--Abd (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Objection (not a !vote). I was looking at old contributors to the article, and I didn't see notices for this AfD. Why not?--Abd (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  User-page notification is a courtesy, but not a requirement for listing an AfD. You can notify people who you think should be notified with {{subst:adw|Delegable proxy}} ~~~~ on their talk page. SBPrakash (talk) 08:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  Users are supposed to watchlist articles they care about. Darkspots (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Easy to say. I'm 63 years old. I was a user here for two years before I figured out how to use the watchlist. On other wikis, watching something would send me an email when it was edited, and I kept expecting that to happen. Wikipedia is not set up that way; I'm not here debating the wisdom of that, but ... users, in addition, may not log in frequently. However, no rush. If source sufficient for the core policy, WP:V does not show up, as judged by this segment of the community, and something shows up, we could go to Deletion Review at that time. But Deletion is not the appropriate remedy here, in my opinion. I'll add another comment in place to explain what I think is proper, and, please note while I cannot vote, AfDs, in theory, are about cogency of arguments, not votes, and a controlling argument presented by a COI editor should be sufficient to balance out all "!votes." Is this really true? Well, I've seen it happen, but, as might be expected, it is not common. Suppose that administrators, on average, hold the same opinion as other knowledgeable editors, so, where something is ambiguous, and neglecting participation bias, we can expect the decision of an administrator to be about the average, regardless of actual argument, when something new or marginal is involved. I've elsewhere written that !voting in AfDs, if it happens at all, should be in a separate section (with no argument in it), and that arguments should be categorized and examined in detail by the participating editors, and either accepted or rejected *after evidence has been collected*, with, in the end, an administrator signing off on the specific arguments justifying the decision. Otherwise, when there is any contention (even one reasonable dissent from the majority), we might as well close AfDs by lot weighted by the votes (i.e, the conclusions of editors, presumably after reviewing the evidence, and voting in an AfD without reviewing the evidence is ... what? It certainly is nothing other than an attempt to vote, based on prejudice). Which, absolutely, I don't recommend. Where it is allowed, I'll send emails to the "absent" users. Is that canvassing? Definitely, not. --Abd (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

One more problem. The editor who did most of the work on the article is not able to respond here, because he has been blocked (quite precipitously, and quite contrary to policy, in my opinion, we'll see what the community thinks through DR process). I've stated that I'm the foremost expert on "delegable proxy," but he, on the topic of current publication on it, as well as old references to similar ideas, is far more knowledgeable than I, he did an amazing amount of research compiling the article. Some of what he found has been challenged here. I don't know enough about those sources to challenge in return. His block could possibly be prejudicing this proceeding.

Not such a nice guy, though, is he? [21] Darkspots (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I did notify you, the creator, and you obviously found out, so I don't see the problem. Superm401 - Talk 22:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Proxy voting. *** Crotalus *** 08:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the level of usage of the term or concept, redirection seems the appropriate remedy for insufficient notability to me. It leaves the article and history in place for future use, if found appropriate, and, in fact, if someone had simply done it, as an ordinary editorial decision (blank and redirect? or just redirect?), we'd have avoided this wikidrama almost entirely. Certainly I would not have contested it -- remember, I'm COI -- and I've seen enough of the edit history of Sarsaparilla/Ron Duvall/Abisdiy to know that he is not an edit warrior, I doubt that he would have made a big fuss either. Where a term -- even a neologism -- has sufficient independent currency, the redirect should be present in any case, and that has been shown here. However, where to redirect is not completely clear. Nevertheless, that, too, is an ordinary editorial decision, and can be changed as an ordinary decision. Again, the less wikidrama the better.--Abd (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "delegable proxy -wikipedia", 1590 ghits. "liquid democracy -wikipedia" 979 ghits. "delegated voting -wikipedia, 3350 ghits. Nordfors' original delegated vote was "delegable proxy," he agrees, but I'm not sure about the World Parliament Experiment method which is attributed to him.[22].--Abd (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment one problem is that the technique is being described under many different names. Delegated voting, above, is common in Europe. The bank I cited above, Common Good Bank, describes it as "Hands-on Democracy," but the picture makes it totally clear: this is delegable proxy. All those other citations, some of which, for all we know, might be in RS (is a bank prospectus RS?), would not show up in searches. Yes, I know, blah, blah, blah.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 09:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Redirect to proxy voting without merge—create a neutral, well-referenced section in that article if it is possible to find reliable, high-quality sources. Wikipedia isn't the place to promote novel experiments in democracy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The extreme lack of independant reliable sources to establish that this is more than a neologism is a serious concern. If this concept starts to be discussed by reliable sources, then it can be recreated (under whatever name)... but until that time it should go. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. This may be important. Following up on an idea expressed here last night, I searched for "common good bank". Many, many independent sources of information about this project, which is, in fact, planned to use delegable proxy, see the references above. They don't call it that name on their web site, which I also mentioned above, but the founder said to me, when I called him, something like, "Yes, this is delegable proxy, we are aware of your work, we just didn't put the term in the explanation, preferring to have a diagram instead." My guess is that this diagram would be released by them for an article here. There is a reference to delegable proxy in the Wikipedia article [[23]], but, again, not by a specific name; instead it has "Member depositors will use a system of direct democracy, based on the wisdom of crowds, to [advise the bank]." This is not only delegable proxy, if you look at the web site of the bank, cited above, it is FA/DP, the very specific form that is my own true specialty. (FA stands for Free Association, see Abd). Now, looking through the Google hits, I find [24]. Not only is there the exact description from the Common Good bank site, there is now (my bold): The bank's participatory democracy melds elements of direct voting, direct representation by revocable proxy, paired instant runoff, range voting, approval voting, internet voting, and town meeting style discussions. Members each get one vote, which they can cast themselves or assign to a representative who casts a proxy vote. "A popular and trusted Representative may vote on behalf of many constituents," states the Bank's website. Members can change their votes for a week after they are cast, and can change their representative anytime." The bank site makes it clear that these are automatically delegable proxies. There is a published article in a print journal on the Common Good Bank, but it doesn't mention the advisory structure.[25]. It's up to you, folks.--Abd (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Those articles do look like reliable sources to me. However, as you mention, the second one doesn't get into the voting system at all, and the first doesn't talk about the delegation (which in my understanding is what really sets delegable proxy apart from other ideas), although it's clear from the Common Good Bank's site that they really are using this system. My take on this is that this is not coverage of this voting system. It would be perfectly reasonable material to include if there are other reliable sources that can establish notability, though. Also, these could justify an article on the Common Good Bank itself, which is really quite interesting. Mangojuice^talk 17:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, no Common Good Bank actually yet exists. They predict that the first will open in 2009—it may be prudent to wait until then before we start getting too enthusiastic about reporting on them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The organization exists, it has collected the bulk of the seed money needed, and it has very substantial local support. I'm a bit surprised that I haven't found local newspaper comment on it, good chance it isn't searchable or something else is wrong. It's supported by well-known local businesses and people. If I had time, I'd look more. (The fact that the founders of this bank project, who did not know me personally or know that I only live a few miles away, when I called them, were familiar with "delegable proxy" and that this is what they were proposing, convinces me that this is actually notable, but that isn't evidence here, it's background as to why I'd even bother to explain what I've been explaining and discussing.--Abd (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

While I wish the founders of the Common Good Bank the best of luck, it should be noted that their first branch is intended to open in the bustling metropolis of Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts (population 1951). I don't know what 'substantial local support' would be, but even if it's everyone in town it's still pretty small potatoes. It's also apparent that their opening date has been pushed back at least once; this essay by one of the founders was written in July 2006 and sets the opening date in October 2007. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Shelburne Falls is somewhat of a center for northwestern Massachusetts, there are many surrounding towns contiguous with it, so the population of the town itself is misleading. By local support, I was talking about known leaders in this entire area of western Massachusetts. I've only lived here for about seven years, and I recognized many of the names. Again, I am not claiming that the topic meets, yet, notability guidelines. But neither is this just some vanity of mine, this is real, and it's really happening, in quite a few different independent places. Because these ideas came from outside academia, there has been very little academic publication. There is some effort being made to find work in Swedish; we have only one translation of a paper written on that project, and Demoex only used DP for a short time because of software problems. As an active political party, though, with political victories, it would seem that there would be some newspaper comment. But we haven't found it yet, I don't know if Absidy has had response from Mikael Nordfors, who might know.--Abd (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete; poorly sourced content fork. - Vary | Talk 22:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't really care about the article itself, but a claim I saw above said "It is a clear neologism" based on the fact that it had few google hits. Google is a recent phenomenon, the web almost as recent. The only conclusion one could draw, and a weak one at that, is that the term is not well-used recently. Certainly the "small number in google" = "clear neologism" is obviously unsupportable. Maury (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of no old usage of "delegable proxy." There are very old sources, I'll dig them up when I have the time, among the anarchist community, going back, I think, into the nineteenth century, describing related concepts, but the actual term is new. "Neologism" is really irrelevant here. If the actual topic, the reality behind the name for it (in this case an organizational concept or technique), is notable, then if the word is the wrong word, the article should be renamed to a better one. I'm concerned, myself, with the concept and the application, not with the name for it. As to forking, certainly delegable proxy could be a section under "proxy voting," though really it's about much more than voting (proxies can do a lot more than vote). Delegated voting has an article, and has been used politically, and the person who coined that term considers it an equivalent to delegable proxy. In literal meaning, though, "delegated voting" would simply mean "proxy voting," same difference. Question: is "delegable proxy" sufficiently notable to justify a redirect from it to another article? --Abd (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has suggested that the term delegable proxy was in use before the Web. Superm401 - Talk 08:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless better sources can be found. I originally though, from a quick look at the reference list, what the heck, how can anyone ask to delete this? But upon looking more closely, it is doubtful most of them are RS. Also per mango Nil Einne (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a not notable neologism per nominator. Sarah 12:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as nn neologism, per the admission above. That could be rebuttable by reliable sources, but while there are sources, they don't seem like reliable sources (e.g., I noted Wikipedia talk pages among the listed sources).--TheOtherBob 05:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per the discussion above. Yellowbeard (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork of proxy voting. Lovelac7 16:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment You are all aware that this is an identical system to delegated voting, right? Just wanted to make sure. Thespian Seagull (talk) 17:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)**
  • That article should probably be deleted, too. Lovelac7 18:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:SONOMINATEIT. Thespian Seagull (talk) 18:46, 29 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) 01:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charlottte Brooke (actor)

Charlottte Brooke (actor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable actor, has only played one part in a TV programme. Also may violate WP:BLP. Roleplayer (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable.--ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. PKT (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 22:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom., and the fairly obvious spelling mistake in the article title - Weebiloobil (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. (and yes, the spelling mistake in her first name makes it even easier to vote for deletion). Jonneroo (talk) 05:53, 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. Davewild (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Stanhope Badley

John Stanhope Badley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possible violation of WP:Not, Memorial section, along with COI and Notability issues Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Par being the nominator for AFD. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - same reasons.--ukexpat (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Ditto! Canyouhearmenow 17:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This is not an encyclopedia article, this is a eulogy. As such, it does not belong here. DarkAudit (talk) 18:34, 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 to delete, but a merge to Information Assurance can be considered by editors.--Doc^g 21:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Master of Science in Information Assurance

Master of Science in Information Assurance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A completely unsourced article on a course in a subject whose own article has massive problems (see information assurance). PRODded but challenged, so here it is at AfD. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Every major could have a Master's. Without sources that actually call the degree itself notable, it's not notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, just because it's possible to make an article doesn't mean there should be one. Non-notable degree TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 00:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep, if someone is willing to add secondary sources. MrPrada (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep I originally deleted it as an expired prod, but I see from [26] that a number of schools do offer this degree--I was not sure there is a standard term, but judging by the NSA, this is now the phrase used. DGG (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A number of schools offer a vegan meal plan, too. Should we have an article on that? Blast Ulna (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • We already do. So are you now saying that we should keep this article? Splash - tk 13:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Shucks, you almost got me. What I am saying is, suppose someone wrote an well-sourced article, Meal plan, which are experienced by millions of college students. Then somebody else comes along and writes a completely unsourced article, Vegan meal plan, which I'm sure some colleges offer. I disagree with notion that showing some links to some colleges that offer vegan meal plans means that vegan meal plans are notable. On the other hand, an article in Time magazine on vegan meal plans would establish that notability. Same here; colleges offer degrees in many different subjects, and of course links can be found for them. So does that make the degree notable? No. Reliable, third party sources do. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Seeing as dozens of schools, if not more, offer this program, I doubt there is a problem locating third party sources from the various academics, professors, etc involved in the course material, not to mention major corporations with Competitive Intelligence Departments, the US Military, the National Security Agency, etc. MrPrada (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
          • This is not a debate over the subject of Information Assurance, which has its own article, but over an MS in the subject. Why don't you help us out and find some sources that attest to the notability of the degree, then? An article in the newspaper that says something like, "the technological arms race with computer hackers has brought us an unusual new degree, a Master of Science in Information Assurance..." Blast Ulna (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Exactly. The article says nothing that is not obvious form the subject: we have master of science and we have information assurance, and the master of science in information assurance says that you can do an MSc in IA. Arbitrary level of qualification in arbitrarily chosen subject. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
              • Most of the people who are contributing to the articles about Information Assurance hold the degree. There are numerous academic journals such as [27], or the NSA's 50 centers of Academic Excellence in Information Assurance. I happen to have served in an IO role in the Army so I think editing these might be a COI, but there ARE sources out there. MrPrada (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
                • I have no doubt that Information Assurance is notable and a noble field of endeavour. The degree isn't. And there is no COI, the thing is not the thing mapped. Blast Ulna (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• comment It has in the past been our practice to keep articles on every individual named degree, even if only a single college offers it, on the grounds that it is the sort of information people would look for in an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note, but there may be a changing consensus, see this AfD, for example. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • In that AfD, which was earlier this February, DGG said Weak Delete, so his consensus might be changing the other way. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per the nom. Unnotable, unnecessary and unencyclopedic. Eusebeus (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as completely unnecessary. [SUBJECT] might be important, but "Master of Art/Science in [SUBJECT]" isn't. --Calton | Talk 16:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A viable heuristic might be that the only necessary degrees are those that appear standalone in the postnominal letters (and not in parentheses). Assuming that the holder of this particular degree uses the traditional MSc/MS postnominals, then this cross-cut doesn't get an article, nor if it goes as something like MSc (IA) nor MSIA. Whereas, a Master of Engineering would use MEng, so that degree does get an article (and has). Then, that degrees in the non-postnominal parts of the degrees are available is a matter for mention in the specialism's article. Splash - tk 23:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, the MSIA is an important degree in a relatively new field of study and it is important for security practitioners who have earned the MSIA degree to have a valid source to cite that describes the nature of their degree qualification. There are many other Masters degree articles in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Master%27s_degrees); are we going to remove all of them? cadill (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2008
  • Comment ignoring other stuff exists for the moment, the key part to your argument is invalid, this is not a valid source to cite because it has no citations. There's no merit to this at the moment. No verification. I recognize toy created this article and have a vested interest in it, but if kept it needs a lot of improvement.TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, Keep It! I am part of this program and it needs this type of recognition - Krystal Bergeron, a Master of Information Assurance Student — 155.201.35.53 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep it, If we're saying Wikipedia isn't an appropriate venue for people seeking out information on the definitaion of an MSIA, then what is? Last I knew, Wikipedia was an encyclopedia of knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.100.50 (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC) — 70.167.100.50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep, Is the NSA not a reputable third-party source? The accreditation process from the NSA is extremely rigorous. There are only 86 accredited schools. The degree may not be noted in some big magazines but it is well received within the actual field of information security. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptserious (talk • contribs) 20:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC) — Cptserious (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Merge into Information Assurance, but the list of external links to institutions offering the course should go as Wikipedia is not a directory. Many articles on professions have sections on training, courses, qualification, accreditation or whatever, e.g. Biostatistics#Education and Training Programs. I see no case for separate articles in general. Splash's "viable heuristic" above on where to draw the line sounds eminently sensible to me. My university taught a "Master of Science in Numerical Solutions of Differential Equations". WP has articles on both Numerical ordinary differential equations and Numerical partial differential equations, and an article on Master of Science, but no article on "Master of science in numerical solutions of differential equations" and that's the way it should stay. Qwfp (talk) 01:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep A person may wish to cite Wikipedia as a reference for the nature of their degree. Look at all the other pages of Masters degrees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Master%27s_degrees) and tell us why the MSIA page should be deleted and not the others. — 155.33.199.205 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Just because other stuff exists is not a reason for this to TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Besides, you'd be much better off citing the website describing the particular course you took. It would be more specific and (probably) more reliable (though give the nature of the course, I'd guess many of the students would find it almost as easy to alter a university webpage as a Wikipedia page ;-) Qwfp (talk) 19:27, 29 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 G4, recreation of deleted material. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anant Mathur

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

Recreation of deleted material PC78 (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Third time's a charm? Can't the article name be blocked?Jellogirl (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, G4 with a heavy dose of salt this time. Only three films, one of which is in preproduction and are all non-notable. Block the author as well. Blueboy96 14:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a procedure for requesting Wikipedia:Protected deleted pages? Jellogirl (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 22:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per G4. Now tagged as such. DarkAudit (talk) 15:35, 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 Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material plus a sprinkling of salt. nancy ^(talk) 16:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rahul's Arranged Marriage

Rahul's Arranged Marriage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recreation of deleted material PC78 (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, recreation of deleted material. Still not any more notable than it was last time Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 14:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, G4 with a heavy dose of salt. Block the author as well. Horribly written--better suited for an ad than anything. Blueboy96 14:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. Jellogirl (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of WP:N; probably just an ad. JJL (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 22:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per G4. Now tagged as such. DarkAudit (talk) 15:36, 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. John254 01:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conway School

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

(Incomplete nomination by User:78.147.148.163; no reason given.) PC78 (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Regardless of nom. Might require a clean up, but schools are generally notable. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Procedural nominator's reason from talk page: "Non-notable school. NNPOV. Factually inaccurate in places. (As a matter of fact the former headmaster has been convicted of child porn offences, although I do not think this notable.)" - User:78.147.148.163

• No comment on merits. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - moved to correct title. This school was formed by a merger of two schools - one was established 156 years ago and one a mere 123 years ago. Even in the UK this is substantial history. TerriersFan (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. substantial history per TerriersFan. valid stub. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep No less than 8 sources in the article, been around for 150years, which helps establish some of the WP:ORG notability requirement. Meets WP:N. Twenty Years 03:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as notable per TF. --Daddy.twins (talk) 16:21, 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St Michaels and All Angels

St Michaels and All Angels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - Primary school which does not appear to pass Notability (schools) guidelines. Google does not show any significant coverage in secondary sources. BelovedFreak 13:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable school. Blueboy96 13:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for being non-notable. Then create a redirect to Michaelmas. -- Roleplayer (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails Notability (schools). However, a redirect isn't required at all. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:03, 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 to delete, which defaults to keep. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bristol & District Cricket Association League

Bristol & District Cricket Association League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

North Somerset Cricket League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Priestley Cup (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Shropshire Cricket League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Shropshire Premier Cricket League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

South Yorkshire Cricket League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Staffordshire Club Cricket Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Warwickshire Cricket League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I am nominating several amateur cricket leagues in England for deletion. None of the articles make any claim to notability, or cite any independent sources, and thus they fail WP:ORG. They are each confined to a single English county, and none of them is even at the top level of English amateur cricket according to this list. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.

• Comment The problem with group nominations is that these are all different things. The Priestley Cup isn't a league for instance. It's a one hundred year old cup competition for teams in the Bradford League. How many sports competitions are a hundred years old without becoming notable? There'd be a lot of press coverage over that course in time, here's an article from the Yorkshire Post [28] for instance for last years final. I'd say these leagues and competitions have a much greater lineage than most of the US college sports which get covered in Wikipedia and considering that soccer gets covered way down the ladder of acceptability I don't understand why these quite senior leagues should get the chop. Nick mallory (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought it was convenient to collect them together, but feel free to express different opinions on each one if you wish. I don't regard age as necessarily conveying notability, because vast numbers of sports clubs and competitions were founded in England towards the end of the nineteenth century, and I don't think that makes them all notable. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - none seems notable from a cricket viewpoint, with the possible exception of the Priestley Cup. One caveat: I see that North Somerset Cricket League has been adopted by the Somerset WP, and it is conceivable that the league might be notable from their perspective. JH (talk page) 19:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Or keep at least some of them. The Shropshire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire Leagues are all feeder leagues to ECB Premier Leagues, which are the highest level of amateur club cricket in England, and possibly others are too. I wouldn't support having articles on the individual clubs that make up these leagues, but the leagues themselves are, IMO, worth retaining as an integral part of the pyramid structure of English cricket. I think User:Jhall1's point about notability for other WikiProjects is also a consideration, and I'm swayed also by the fact that another sport with a similar pyramid structure, soccer, has lots of articles on leagues that appear much more geographically constrained than these are, and are further down that sport's structure. Johnlp (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.
• Keep Priestley Cup for sure - I'm undecided on the others, but the cup competition definitely seems to have gained notability through the years. I do lean towards Keep to the leagues as well. matt91486 (talk) 22:28, 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. Davewild (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unithetical Linguistics

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

Delete per WP:NOR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:DVote per above. Also brushes up against WP:NPOV Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 09:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOR. Stephen Turner (Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Kubek15 ^{(Talk) • (Sign!) • (What I've done)} 11:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as copyvio of [29] Blueboy96 13:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete because it's an unsourced essay. I appreciate that Blueboy has tracked down where this came from; I disagree that it's a copyvio, because blogs aren't copyrighted. It's not plagiarism, since it appears that Nikson thought it might be a good idea to make an article out of one of his blog articles (or vice versa). But it's an essay, with no sourcing. That's all right for your personal blog; it isn't all right for an online encyclopedia. Suggestion to Nikson is to look for and contribute to (with sources) articles on the subject of Qu'ranic translation, which, like Biblical translation, is an important topic. Mandsford (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Blogs are certainly copyrighted. --Michael White^T·C 17:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• That blog entry was created by "Nikson", and the creator of this article is User:Nikson Paak. It seems plausible that the two authors are the same person. It is not a copyvio if the article's creator also posted it to Wikipedia under the GFDL. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• OK, blogs are subject to copyright. This one isn't. Mandsford (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - per WP:NOR. Canyouhearmenow 17:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete -- this is Original research if I ever saw one. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. I am at a loss to even guess what unithetical might mean. Seems to be about Qur'an translations. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with everyone else who voted Delete. I'm wondering what Unithetical is supposed to mean too! 99.230.152.143 (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Presumably that it's thetical but not polythetical? --Paularblaster (talk) 22:00, 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. Mr.Z-man 22:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mount Zogon

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

Zogonia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Two very funny comic strips by Tony Mosely, unfortunately with no notability outside Dragon magazine. Have attempted to look for references without success; 14 ghits for "Tony Mosely" Zogonia for example isn't much to pick from. Marasmusine (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom who tagged these six months ago re notability and lack of references. There has been no improvement, no notability established and they should go away so folks stop wasting time on this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to Dungeon magazine and Dragon magazine, as appropriate. These are comics published exclusively in those magazines with no notability outside of that format. Howa0082 (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Zogonia, Redirect Mount Zogon to it. Zogonia has had a compilation book printed by Paizo Publishing last year, in addition to its magazine appearances. Considering that only a handful of comics have ever run in Dragon Magazine, it is one of the few to ever have a printed compilation book (Neither Wormy nor Yamara managed the feat). However, I admit that while there are 3850 ghits for Zogonia, mostly from places selling the compilation, I'm having trouble finding any actual reviews from reliable sources. Maybe an article on Comics in Dragon Magazine is in order? While each one suffers notability issues, together they are stronger. --Ig8887 (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - non notable. shadzar|Talk|contribs 18:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Unreferenced with no showing of notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)