Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< February 6 February 8 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete, redirect creation is allowed if needed. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reduced armaments

Reduced armaments (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A stub unexpanded since December 2007 and unlikely to be sustainable as a separate article. Topic is mentioned in Fourteen Points and if expansion is required, it would be better placed there. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. At best this article could expand to be a replication of material that is or should be in fourteen points, in which case it shouldn't exist as a standalone article. We could redirect this to fourteen points, but I'm not convinced this is a notable enough phrase to be a redirect. If others who are more familiar with the subject believe this is a useful redirect term, then redirect would be an appropriate outcome. Gwernol 23:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this is to be redirected then I think arms control would be a better target. I don't think this phrase is specific to the fourteen points. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete there's just not enough context there for it to be understood. Polly (Parrot) 19:10, 12 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brett novak

Brett novak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability. Most of this person's works and credits appear to be their own self-promotion efforts and not legitimate notability.DJBullfish 23:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as above. Does not pass WP:BIO. Borderline A7 speedy, in my opinion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - does not assert notability. If he is, indeed, an "award winning film and internet producer, writer, actor, composer, and director" some information about these awards should be sourced. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete sources are unreliable. Sestertium (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete cursory websearch shows no remarkable third-party references needed for notability.Sallicio (talk) 06:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Sallicio
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep--JForget 00:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Juggalo

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

A neologism for a subculture that focuses on the fanbase of Insane Clown Posse. Doesn't require it's own entry in an encyclopedia in my opinion. See WP:NEO for more information on how neologisms are normally treated. Poeloq (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I know that this has been discussed before, and I appreciate that some people might think that renominating it might seem a little "harsh". But I believe that the arguments to keep it last time were weak, at best. Poeloq (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep: WP:NEO doesn't forbid articles on neologisms, only that some articles on neologisms may be inappropriate. Juggalo doesn't seem to fit either of the inappropriate categories: the article does more than merely define the term, and the article isn't simply original research attempting to track the emergence of the term. Further, WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms seems to be directed more towards articles about new terms themselves, not articles about topics which happen to be described by a new term, if that makes sense. That is, juggalo is an article about juggalos, not an article about the term "juggalo." Furthermore, the term seems to be picking up some mainstream use, including an Oct. 25, 2007 article in the Detroit News. Chuck (talk) 00:06, 8 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emilio Nuñez

Emilio Nuñez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete newsy? yes; encyclopedic? no - just another convicted murderer like thousands of others. nn. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - not every murderer needs an article (for glorification). --Nepenthessss (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree with Nepenthessss on this one 100%. Fails notability. Poeloq (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree that this fails notability guidelines. --Dawn bard (talk) 18:15, 8 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Perepiteia

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

Non-notable perpetual motion machine. Corvus cornixtalk 22:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep Don't really care if it is ground breaking or not, however I am very fasinated by how claims like this are treated when they have yet to be proven (either way). I will be very interested to see how the story unfolds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.228.73.13 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep I came to Wikipedia to find the relevant information on this subject in one well referenced place. I doubt the machine works, but I'm looking forward to this article eventually containing the disproving fact, then linking to related topics. Until then, I want this page here keeping the story and references in one place. If it was worth searching for, shouldn't it be here? raulcleary (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is an interesting device which does not claim to be perpetual motion. It might have new developments and why exclude it from Wikipedia just because it might be a hoax. It certainly is notable because of its sorta passing scrutiny by MIT. I came here to look for information about it, and why shouldn't I get it? CarVac (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Until MIT says otherwise, information on this device should not be hidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.5.4 (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The device and the inventor's claims, or lack of, are of note. The construction materials and methods, and the techniques involved in its making are still under scrutiny by the scientific community; no judgement has yet been passed. Deletion at this point would be premature. 17:37, 8 February 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.43.30.101 (talk)
  • Keep New to this process, but hopefully my vote counts. Why is this up for deletion? I created it because I did not understand what the Perepiteia machine was and hoped to 1) Learn more and 2) Help others by sharing what little I knew. I figure this machine is a bunch of bunk like 100% of all such machines, but I wanted to know the trick. Sort of like those silly foil anti-grav triangles that really use current to create airflow lift. I realize it's a crazy idea that is 99.999999999999999% likely to be a stupid hoax but how can I learn from others tricks and mistakes if they aren't documented? Where else but wikipedia would I learn this? I created the article today and already it's got all kinds of followup stuff on it for me to learn when I checked back. Seems like wikipedia is doing it's job. I'm kind of disappointed that someone knee-jerked this for deletion. As far as being non-notable, it does seem to be 1) a new trick 2) accelerate instead of maintain motion and 3) have quite a few links. Bottom line is if you do remove this, at least put the knowledge of its existence and method of operation somewhere else that will show up under a search for "Perepiteia". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwiggs (talk • contribs) 04:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — Nwiggs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete How could a perpetual motion machine be non-notable, I hear you cry? but see WP:REDFLAG. JohnCD(talk) 22:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
That's not what WP:REDFLAG means. WP:REDFLAG is talking about exaggerated claims made by Wikipedia editors in Wikipedia articles without proper sourcing. This article is simply documenting this inventor's (possibly over-exaggerated) claims, not actually making those claims. It's the difference between writing an article claiming that the world is flat and writing an article about the Flat Earth Society.--Aervanath (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, and per Redflag... WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN round of applause 23:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The device was featured in a recent news article, and there is still no confirmation or condemnation from the scientific community. The source listed implies that more information should soon be available, and a google search for the device name reveals a lot of internet activity. Many comments from various bulletin boards have lamented the previous lack of a wikipedia article to organize information in a central location. If possible, someone well versed in wikipedia standards should clean up this article, rather than delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddyenumber4 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — Reddyenumber4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Speedy Delete Obxiously a hoax or scam. Edward321 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep this perpetual motion machine, if that is what it is, already has more scientific credibility than Steorn, which has had absolutely no public validation at all from any scientist yet continues to occupy a lengthy wikipedia article. in what way is steorn any more or less notable than this fellow?Jaganath (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Here's an additional reference from PhysOrg where MIT professor Markus Zahn is quoted as saying "It's an unusual phenomena I wouldn't have predicted in advance but I saw it. It's real." Neither Markus or the inventor are saying it's a perpetual motion machine in that particular article. In another article, the Toronto Star says "There's no talk of perpetual motion". I think it's an interesting machine. I'm quite sure it won't turn out to be a perpetual motion machine but I do think it's notable, as do reputable sources. The news articles give the impression that the inventor isn't trying to hoax or scam, but genuinely and openly looking for an explanation of why/how it's working Numsor (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — Numsor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • For the record, I find the preceding "has made few or no other edits outside this topic" tag to be a disgrace. It's an outrageous attempt to water down an opinion that I have a clear right to express, as per the policies on this site. My contributions are obvious to anyone that wants to check them, without an insulting tag attached. It's a pretty sad day when Wikipedia has come to this. Numsor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I could find no evidence in the history log of the SPA tag being added. I feel that the origin of such tagging should be documented, even if it is automated, as per the precedent of 'SineBot'. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Regardless of whether or not the device is scientifically useful, it is definitely notable. The flurry of news activity indicates notability. Disclosure: I have conducted most of the article's editing. I don't believe the system will be proven to produce any real gains, but, as stated, believe that the topic is noteworthy. TheodoreTest (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — TheodoreTest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ... because Theo has been waiting for an excuse to get into Wikipedia and now has found an interesting topic to start off editing. :P
  • Strong Keep All the criticism relates to people rejecting the device as bunk because it's a "perpetual motion machine". Even the inventor avoids that term and say that even if it's not a perpetual motion machine, there could be some useful mechanism at work for enhancing the efficiency of motors, which is not yet understood. There could be a useful invention here. So my point is, it's not just noteworthy because there are news stories about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.140.1.25 (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. This invention, regardless of validity, has gained the attention of numerous news venues, scientists, and famous bloggers. Just because you have never heard of it, does not make it non-notable. i read about it first in the news, and then here. It has been shown that this article has numerous cited sources, more than most stubs which pass notability criteria. Also, WP:REDFLAG only applies to presenting ideas which are not verifiable, but does not apply to neutral articles about fringe theories, so long as the theory itself (not the acceptance or rejection of it, but the concept itself) is notable. It even mentions "not covered by mainstream sources" which this subject has been.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 17:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This article should be kept and updated as new information becomes available. --KickTheDonkey (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Please provide a reason as to why the article should be kept. This is a discussion, not a vote. Corvus cornixtalk 21:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Having updated information on a topic in the news would appear to be his rationale, and the bold keep in front of his statement would be his vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.15.109 (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep To paraphrase more politely my talk-page reaction (and with apologies to Wikipedians for the abrasiveness of my opinions), I wish to be able to use the Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. If I search for background information on a 'Perepiteia' device that I've encountered in a mainstream media venue [1], I expect to find a relatively unbiased entry on the 'Perepiteia' device that does a decent job of conveying established facts and information. This article does not seem to make any counter-factual claims, nor does it have a particularly credulous tone. While I greatly and very genuinely appreciate the many person-years of labour contributed by the (cult)ure of Wikipedians that has grown up around the Wikipedia, maintaining the accuracy, relevance, inter-relatedness and coherence of the corpus; this sort of policing does not directly contribute to the value of the Wikipedia, and should never be allowed, rule or no, to detract from that value. -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It is notable, it seems to be real. I am sure it won't pan out but that is completely beside the point. Wki reports what 'they say', not the 'truth'.Greg Locock (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] News Reports and Other Mentions:

Only the Toronto Star articles are by reliable sources. And although we can't rely on wikis such as peswiki, the comments there do put the kibosh on any "notability" this guy should get. See WP:FRINGE. Corvus cornixtalk 17:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The article is about the machine, not "this guy". As such, I don't think his notability is being discussed, rather his machine's notability is. He has said that he isn't progressing a theory, fringe or otherwise so WP:FRINGE, which deals with fringe theories, doesn't seem too relevant. He's simply presenting a machine that, as you say, is noted in articles from at least one reliable source, is being investigated by a (presumably reliable) Professor and debunked (tentatively and with disclaimers that the debunking comes without any physical examination) in a wiki that, as you mentioned, isn't a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.19.45 (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The Physorg (and peswiki) arguments do put the kibosh on the device's "perpetual motion machine" status. They do not, however, put the kibosh the device's ability to stir up interest and discussion. The Pons and Fleischmann "cold fusion discovery" is a great example of a parallel wikipedia topic. Modest initial inventor claims are drowned out by massive media focus on the hypothetical, the source phenomenon is eventually explained, and the technology is eventually discredited. The event is notable, even if the invention itself does not stand the test of time. TheodoreTest (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
But then again, you'll need to provide reliable sources that this device is being discussed at all. Corvus cornixtalk 21:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Haven't you already provided a reliable source yourself? You've pointing out above that the Toronto Star, where the device is discussed, is a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.19.45 (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Corvus, what's your problem/obsession with silencing this man? You want proof it's being discussed look here:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/08/02/09/1436257.shtml That ought to satisfy you times a billion. Give up. You've lost the point and lost the vote. This is staying whether you like it or not. The bottom line is PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THIS. THAT IS WHY IT SHOULD BE KEPT. Your crusade that it's not valid is irrelevant. Your claim that it's not popular is factually wrong. People just want to know more about this thing. Who cares if it is "real" or not. Wikipedia can tell them that upon a surfers initial visit if/when it's determined. BUT ONLY IF THE ARTICLE IS NOT DELETED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwiggs (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
1) <sarcasm degree=mild self=included> Let's remember the real reason we're all here: to bruise each other's egos and win a big, immensely important fight.</sarcasm>
2) I think that this discussion is veering towards the argumentation of slights, intentional or not, garnered during the consensus gathering process. We should probably try to steer it towards a mutual recognition of disagreement. The preponderance of opinion seems to be that:
(a) the device is probably essentially yet another perpetual motion machine that won't work,
(b) that the impact it has made in the public record is sufficient that an article on the wikipedia is useful, and
(c) that the current article makes a good-faith effort towards neutrality, and does not present pseudo-science as fact.
3) Does this seem to be a fair summary, more or less, to everyone? 69.49.44.11 (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a good summary to me.--Aervanath (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Depending on the examination of this device by Dr. Zhan, it may become immensely famous or just another piece of junk in a pile of failed perpetual motion machines. If it is the latter, there is no reason we can't revisit the article and delete it for its 10 minutes of fame being over. Until then, however, it is all over the media and it's been Slashdotted. Plenty of reliable sources. --Laser brain (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with the "keep it now, delete it later" approach. Just because something's 10 minutes of fame are over doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep the article on it. If it meets WP:N now, why will it cease to in the future? (see New Coke for comparison)--Aervanath (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep The growth of the Perepiteia article is an excellent example of why a quick stub should be left to mature for a little while before somebody swoops in and tries to delete it.--(edited)Wageless (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an interesting article that is relatively informative. And I'm sure that it will be greatly improved in the near future due to Slashdot interest. -Shogun (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This clearly meets WP:N standards. Even if it turns out to be complete bunk, it's still created a buzz in the media, people are talking about it, etc. I'd elaborate, but I'd probably just be repeating what other people said, especially 69.49.44.11's summary above.--Aervanath (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Multiple reliable sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.210.172 (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - I think that it is notable enough, but the article needs expansion with better sources. A lot of the secondary sources given in the article are not reliable (IE: blogs). Rigby27 (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Given that keeps seriously outnumber deletes here, can someone please remove the deletion tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.15.109 (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Um... it'd be better if nobody went ahead and did that on their own, for a few days. Procedurally (and yes, it's important, as that way we can all rely on precedent) a volunteer admin should first move this page to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Perepiteia/Old; then, a few days later, a similar admin should review the page, look for consensus, and remove the tag, as per these guidelines. I recommend giving them until 05:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC), or so, after which time the reader should regard this note of caution (by me) as withdrawn from consideration. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the info, I was hoping my post would be a shout out to someone qualified to do those things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.190.89.173 (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems notable to me, lots of reliable sources. --AW (talk) 16:38, 13 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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Igreja Pentecostal e Apostólica Missão Jesus

Igreja Pentecostal e Apostólica Missão Jesus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Created by single editor who hasn't addressed concerns that the article is badly written. Much of the material is covered at Antonio Fernandez Saenz. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nominating related page:

Soldados de Cristo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Cordless Larry (talk) 22:51, 7 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 due to lack of reliable, third-party sources (in any language) needed to verify notability. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vako Togonidze

Vako Togonidze (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Looks to be a non-notable businessman but I brought it here because perhaps good sources are simply unavailable in English, or we should be searching for his original name not this transliteration. It's an autobiography of a man from Georgia (former SSR, though it's confusing because he also attended school in Georgia USA....). Can't really find anything on google, we don't have an article about his company, he seems young to be really that important (but it's still possible), all sources are from his company website. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC).

  • He is a really famous and successful busses man in Georgia. There are a lot of articles and publications on net regarding his success in real estate business, but the matter is that all is in Georgian language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.210.217.83 (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, I did not read any reasonable argument in the comments above to delete this page. Not finding enough articles about the person or a company on the internet alone is not sufficient argument for deletion. Georgia is developing country with around 4 million population. There are not many English language pages related to Georgia and Georgians on the internet. Georgian language is unique – non Slavic and non Indo-European language not widely supported by technological media. There are not many pages in Georgian language on the internet.
  • As far as person’s age, it should be noted that Georgia’s president – Saakashvili won his second term of presidency and just turned 40. He has been Georgia’s president for past four years already. Current Prime Minister -Gurgenidze is 38, Defense Minister – Kezerashvili is 29, Finance Minister – Gilauri is 32, Minister for Repatriates and Refuges – Subeliani is 29, Economy Minister –Sharashidze is 33, Energy Minister – Xetaguri is 31, Minister of Agriculture - Tsiskarishvili is 33. Let me see how many articles one can find about these people.
  • Georgia is a young democracy with growing economy and technology infrastructure. TexxGroup is among top three Real Estate Development and Promotion companies in Georgia. The whole Real Estate market reached mature developed stage around 3 to 5 years ago and there may not be enough information in English on the internet. Yet, anyone who is interested in Georgia, it’s economy, real estate, investment and so on, should be able to read about TexxGroup and it’s CEO Vako Togonidze. Andro900
  • Keep , I have read a lot about Vako Togonidze and his achievements. He was one of the key figures during the Georgian Rose Revolution. Since Georgia is a post soviet country older people have more-less soviet mentality even in doing Business. That's why most of Georgian Businessmen are young. I think just because Vako is young he shouldn't be deleted from wikipedia. I think it's all about how much you've done in life, not how old you are. Americans usually start their career after 30 and in Georgia it's different. I don't know anyone who is 26 and is the founder and CEO of one of the leading Real Estate companies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.117.57.86 (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:23, 7 aFebruary 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - article does not assert notability and seems to read like an advertisement for "TEXX Group". -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Article contains pure facts regarding a person. And TEXX group looks to be a large company —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.195.120 (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Togonidze looks to be a famous and successful person in his country. If there is no enough articles about the person on the internet alone is not sufficient argument for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.95.167.19 (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep No sufficient argument for deletion.
    Notability does not signify world wide notability for Wikipedia encyclopedia. Any person searching information about commerce, real estate, companies CEOs in Georgia or of Georgian origin should be able to find out about Valerian Togonidze, Texxgroup and what makes this person and the company “notable worth”.
    I would say that more information can be added to the page for completeness, but deletion will only reduce the knowledge and informativeness this encyclopedia offers.
    --Davidia (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems that the only people who want to keep this here are anonymous editors and editors whose only contribution to Wikipedia is on this single topic. The article still lacks any reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sufficient argument for deletion.Article contains pure facts about a very prosperouse businessman in Georgia. I assume there are only a few Wikipedia editors from Georgia, and thats why all coments ar from anonymous people.Georgian RE market is booming and a lot of foreign investors invest in the countrey (It's written in most of the best western Newspapers) If one wants to find a proffesional reliable business partner in Georgia Togonidze is one of them. So why delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.11.19.10 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Article may need some minor changes, but not necessary to be deleted. These persons age in contrast to his achievements may be just one reason to keep it on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jondoornot (talk • contribs) 06:50, 12 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, thus defaulting to keep. Some good points on both sides, and I suspect we will wind up here again if referencing and presentation do not improve.--Kubigula (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Satisfaction with Life Index

Satisfaction with Life Index (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Totally subjective topic. Data is based on unverifiable survey created by non-verified expert; Results are highly controversial. Pseudoscience in a nutshell. Not suitable for an encyclopedia Sbw01f (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Incorrect description. University research material. Cited by for example the BBC: [2][3]Ultramarine (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Pseudoscience or not notability is asserted. Also, anything that ranks Denmark as #1 deserves my keep vote! EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's been covered by many major media outlets. Kingturtle (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it's been covered by a few major media outlets does not in of itself validate the content. The data is still unverifiable, created by an amateur, and highly subjective. For these reasons alone I don't think it's suitable for an encyclopedia. Show me the methodology, or some sort of proof that the list wasn't made up on the spot, and I'll concede.

Sbw01f (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As the links above and in the article shows, it is research done at university by at a by a scholar.Ultramarine (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care where the research was done. I care how it was done.

Sbw01f (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"The data on SWB was extracted from a meta-analysis by Marks, Abdallah, Simms & Thompson (2006)." So you can find all the gory details you want in "Marks, N., Abdallah, S., Simms, A, Thompson, S. (2006). The Happy Planet Index. London: New Economics Foundation."[4]Ultramarine (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but random names don't prove a thing. How about the methodology, like I've already mentioned a number of times. What were the questions asked? Did they ask everyone the exact same questions word for word? How many people from each country did they ask? Did they ask billionaires living in mansions, or poor people living in slums? Or both? Did they only ask men? Women? Only seniors? Children? An even amount of each? Did the demographics of who they questioned stay exactly the same from country to country or did they only question people living in slums in one country, and people living in mansions in another country? Did they question an even amount of immigrants and natives?

Do you understand what I'm saying? Surveys like this are 100% meaningless without the methodology behind them, because you can literally get whatever results you desire based on the questions you ask, and who you ask.

Sbw01f (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the source via a library or buy it. There is no requirement that there should be on online source.Ultramarine (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So you concede. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbw01f (talk • contribs) 23:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The methodology etc are in "Marks, N., Abdallah, S., Simms, A, Thompson, S. (2006). The Happy Planet Index. London: New Economics Foundation." If you want the details, then you can find it there. But there is no requirement that there should be a free online source. Most scholarly articles and books are not free and online.Ultramarine (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually the methodology for their survey is not found in the Happy Planet Index[1]. They simply used that study and extracted data from it.

Sbw01f (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You can find the answers to the questions you asked above in "Marks, N., Abdallah, S., Simms, A, Thompson, S. (2006). The Happy Planet Index. London: New Economics Foundation."Ultramarine (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
See appendix 2: [5] Ultramarine (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone over it already, all they do tell you is a few of the questions they asked. There is virtually zero information on the demographics of who they questioned.

Sbw01f (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

They discuss how they calculate life satisfaction on several pages by looking at and summarizing different surveys. If you want more details on these surveys, then you can read them in turn. References are given.Ultramarine (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You stated "Show me the methodology, or some sort of proof that the list wasn't made up on the spot, and I'll concede." Certainly done, so I hope we can reach an agreement?Ultramarine (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, I don't care about the methodology any more than how Rolling Stone comes up with Greatest Guitarist, all that matters is that the topic it is cited in the reliable media. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine: I still haven't seen any info regarding the demographics or specifics of the people questioned, meaning in my opinion, the list is still useless. I will admit however that I hadn't realized the entire basis of the SWLI was directly extracted from the more reliable/scientific "happy planet index", thus I'll push the issue no further and let others decide.

Again, look in the surveys, references are given in the link above.Ultramarine (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sbw01f (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal. We shouldn't care what methodology they used or how accurate it is (or isn't); we should care about whether it is notable and sourced. It is. The fact is, this survey exists and gained significant media attention, and thus can be covered, even if the science behind it is suspect. But at any rate, this is basically just using the data from one study (the Happy Planet Index) and using it to answer a different question. The data-gathering methodology in question thus belongs to another article anyway, and thus has no bearing on this one. --Ig8887 (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (I apologize for the long explanation, but this is a complicated issue.)
I admit that this is not pseudoscience and that the researcher is almost certainly legitimate. However, I came to that conclusion only through a lot of investigation because the article is so terribly written. My guess is that the methodology is best described as not being perfectly in line with what a textbook would describe as ideal research but about as good as can be expected in the real world. However, there are different problems with the article.
I have two minor problems with the article. First, the bulk of the article is a ranked list, which is likely copyvio. If this article is retained, this can probably be corrected by presenting just pieces of the list, such as the top- and bottom-ten nations as well as mentioning other large nations. Second, the sources do not use the phrase, “Satisfaction with Life Index.” Instead, they use the phrase, “The World Map of Happiness.” Moving the article to World Map of Happiness can solve this.
If those were the only problems, deletion would not be necessary. However, I do not think that this topic is notable. The news coverage cited in the article draw extensively on a single press release.[6] The research itself appears to be published in a minor journal. A Google Scholar search for the phrase, “Satisfaction with Life Index,” found only eight hits, some of which predated the research described in the Wikipedia article.[7] A search for the phrase, “World Map of Happiness,” got only a dozen hits.[8] The article that the map is based on has been cited only two times.[9] I cannot justify keeping this article.--FreeKresge (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding copyvivo, raw data itself cannot be copyrighted. It is merely one component of the Happy Planet Index which has 55 citations in Google scholar. The map is notable since it has been cited by mainstream news sources like the BBC. "Satisfaction with Life Index" gets 6,500 hits in Google [10] and "World Map of Happiness" gets 17,000 [11].Ultramarine (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment For starters, the list is not raw data. The researcher analyzed raw data from various sources to create a ranked list. A ranked list is copyrighted. It is still a minor issue that can be solved without deleting the entire article. The citations for Happy Planet Index are irrelevant as that article is not up for deletion (as far as I know). There is still a notability issue. “Satisfaction with Life Index” has only 87 unique Google hits[12], and the first 20 or so are mostly blogs, trivial mentions, and references to or material taken from the Wikipedia article. The results for “World Map of Happiness” are better (640 unique hits[13]) but there are still a lot of blogs among the top hits and very little else that does not appear to come from the press release. If the article is kept, “World Map of Happiness” is the better name, but, based on what sources are available, I cannot justify keeping the article. At most, I could support a brief mention of the map in the Happy Planet Index article.--FreeKresge (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
A list of discovered data cannot be copyrighted. Source if claiming otherwise. "What Is Not Protected by Copyright?: ... Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration."[14] A particular presentation of discovered data can, like a particular graph. Or certain produced forms of data, like a particular text or a musical composition. But not discovered data. (Some can be patented. But that is not applicable here). I am not entirely against redirecting the page to Happy Planet Index article.Ultramarine (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per FreeKresge. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge with Happy Planet Index. The main problems appear to be that (a) the title does not align with the source and (b) unclear how the research presented here is distinct from that presented in Happy Planet Index. The research method and validity of the concept are irrelevant to the deletion decision. Famously bad ideas (e.g. N ray) are quite acceptable in WP as long as they are are verifiable and properly referenced. Nesbit (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with Happy Planet Index, so the table would include both HPI and SWL. There is no reason to have two separate articles, but neither is there any reason to delete the notable and referenced information contained in this article. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 02:40, 13 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 failing to meet WP:RS, and therefore WP:V and WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] College of Thelema of Northern California

College of Thelema of Northern California (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

New organization (registered 1/2/2008 according to California State website) has not yet achieved notability. Article does not assert importance or notability. Valtyr (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete unless notability is established with reliable sources. Corvus cornixtalk 22:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    See changes from February 8. Importance and notability is now evident from the additional details. Revealer93talk 09:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    I disagree. Still no notability, and no sources other than those which are associated with this school. Corvus cornixtalk 21:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It just doesn't meet the notability guidelines, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Polly (Parrot) 19:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    Thelemapedia is an independent Wiki encyclopedic reference. It is not associated with the College of Thelema of Northern California Revealer93talk 18:36, 13 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 --JForget 00:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Untitled 5th Album

Untitled 5th Album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced speculation about an album being used mostly as a coatrack BLP violation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:47, 7 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yamaha FZ 750

Yamaha FZ 750 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete written like an essay, and nothing showing the notability of this particular product Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep it is poorly written but Yamaha FZ750 (as it should be titled) is a a redlink in List of Yamaha motorcycles. A 'cleanup' tag would be more appropriate. Also be careful not to bite new users. The FZ750 is as notable as any other Yamaha motorcycle. I will highlight this to the motorcycling project and see if we can get it cleaned up. Thanks. Nimbus227 (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

On a further look I see it is a clear copyvio of the first reference, this will not be easy. Nimbus227 (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Update I have written a completely new article with the correct article title of Yamaha FZ750. I suggest that the article discussed here is either deleted or made a redirect to the one that I have created. Nimbus227 (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete and/or Redirect based on strength and quality of new, properly named article. Duncan1800 (talk) 13:44, 8 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. Ѕandahl 05:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bumperactive

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

Spammy, unencyclopedic content about a non-notable website. Trivial coverage, mostly is about bumper stickers with the website getting half a mention. Their press page is two broken links, a blog that mentions their staff was at a small event, and BoingBoing isn't loading. Doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:WEB Travellingcari (talk) 21:38, 7 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 Closed as keep. Dreadstar † 18:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 205

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 113 Articles for deletion/List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 197 Articles for deletion/List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 205
Articles for deletion/List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 244 Articles for deletion/List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 35 Articles for deletion/List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 90

This is the page I happened to discover, but this would obviously effect every article in this series. WP:NOT states that wikipedia is not a directory, and that appears to be what we have here. A complete index of the United States Reports is not an encyclopedia article and is not a list designed to give insight and commentary on a particular group of objects. Every single link here is a red link too, as is the case on some of these other pages as well, which means that it is not even a guide to coverage on wikipedia. Maybe someday every U.S. Supreme court case will have an article and this will be the best way to organize them (though United States Reports is only the most important of several Supreme Court reporters so it hardly seems proper to group in that manner exclusively), but at the moment this is just a directory and red link farm. Also note that Lists of United States Supreme Court cases provides much of the same material in an annotated context and that there is hardly a need to have two different lists that essentially do the same thing. Indrian (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete The intent seems to be to pave the way for an article about every single published opinion that is handed down by the United States Supereme Court, and there are quite a few reasons why that's not a good idea for a project. Notwithstanding that this isn't Westlawpedia, or that the High Court decisions are visible elsewhere, the main reason is that all court decisions are susceptible to different interpretations. Even the average lawyer is not in a position to write a Wikipedia article that "explains" the meaning of a court decision. This is an idea that's neither necessary nor feasible. Mandsford (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
By that reasoning we shouldn't have articles for Roe v. Wade or Dred Scott v. Sandford. Someday hopefully there will be an article for every Supreme Court case and these lists will help.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

1. "Information: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." This does not apply because the case names and decision dates by themselves are virtually meaningless and the article provides nothing that the reader cannot find using an index.

2. "Navigation: Lists can be used as tables of contents and indexes, or if the user is browsing without a specific research goal in mind, they would likely use the See also lists. If the user has a specific research goal in mind, and there is only one or two words that are used to describe the research topic, and they know exactly how to spell the word, they would probably use the search engine box. If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles)." This would work if articles actually existed for most of the entries, but much of it is redlinks.

3. "Development: Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of Wikipedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written. However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space, if the list is not otherwise encyclopedic." (emphasis mine) This one fits the best of course, but check out the boldface. Without additional information not found on an index or the utility of linking a large number of articles, the list is not encyclopedic on its own so should not be in the main space according to this criteria.

Based on the three guidelines above, would you care to present a rebuttal as to how the list meets WP:LIST, because based on what you have stated so far, your argument is not valid. Indrian (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said the list is organised basically chronologically and the whole series is structured by volume. This meets the information requirement of WP:LIST where it says "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists". I argue that having the case names and decision dates in a structured format is valuable and not meaningless as you said. Combining this with the development potential of the list, where many of the more recent cases do have their own articles, as over time will cases from this list, makes it an encyclopedic list. Davewild (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I do see where you are coming from, but basically you are saying its value stems from it being a directory of cases. WP:NOT clearly states that wikipedia is not a directory. How do you reconcile this? Indrian (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Full disclosure: I created this article and many of the other lists of U.S. Supreme Court case article lists. But as per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 113 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 35 cited by Davewild, those well reasoned arguments should really suffice. I will also say that I use these articles all the time to navigate and create new articles. Nowhere else on wikipedia is there a complete list of US Supreme Court case articles. It is also organized chronologically, so despite what Indrian says, it fulfills the first two categories of the WP:LIST. As for Indrian's point that wikipedia isn't a directory at WP:NOT, that page says: "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List." I would say this is comparable.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok, a coupel of problems here. First of all, the issues of whether a list is structured and whether a list is valuable are two different issues that you are merging into one. A list of my favorite bathtime gurgles in the order in which I dreamed them up would not satisfy criteria one just because it was chronological, but it would be structured. Second, the definition of valuable in this context is not whether it is useful for creating new articles. Please read criteria 3 again where it says that lists that are primarily useful for determining the progress made on wikipedia should be on a project page and not in the mainspace. How you get that it fulfills criteria two is particularly mystifying because navigation is not possible through a series of redlinks: if there are not articles extant, a list cannot be used for navigating wikipedia. Indrian (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Apparently you are under the impression that your "favorite bathtime gurgles" are on par in signifance with the select decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Wrong. As for number two, you will notice that each list has a table at the bottom which links with each other list creating a complete list of cases. If you remove one particular list of cases, you defeat the purpose of having a complete list. Also, just because the links are red doesn't mean they always will be. In fact they are very useful for starting a new article because they use the proper citation format and each has a citation that can be cross referenced. You are not going to convince me that these lists should not exist.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Your strawman is not helping things you know. You stated above that because the list is chronological it automatically fulfills criteria one. I merely gave an example of a chronological list that would not fulfill criteria one. If you cannot separate a hypothetical from personal opinion, we may have a problem. We are talking about the list and whether or not it conforms to policy. Never have I argued that the cases themselves are not notable. The question is whether the list as it stands conforms with policy. I think it does not. You think it does. That is the issue. There is no problem with these lists remaining in a wikiproject space devoted to Supreme Court cases, but it seems to me criteria three suggest they should not be in the mainspace. Indrian (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I'll try to go through each one of your points one by one, first for why you originally thought this page should be deleted. I'll try not to use any "strawmen". You say:
(1) "WP:NOT states that wikipedia is not a directory, and that appears to be what we have here." See my above comment, comparing this page to Nixon's enemies list.
(2) "A complete index of the United States Reports is not an encyclopedia article and is not a list designed to give insight and commentary on a particular group of objects." You can take from this list what you want. The Supreme Court is selective about the cases they review and each individual court chooses cases that it thinks are important in moving the law in certain directions. So I would say that the complete list does give insight into the ways that the court has changed directions, and this particular list gives insight into the state of the law in 1907.
(3) "Every single link here is a red link too, as is the case on some of these other pages as well, which means that it is not even a guide to coverage on wikipedia." This page is part of the complete list of cases, and there are thousands of SCOTUS case articles that that list links to. Also, you may have noticed that Dreadstar has assiduously been creating articles to fill in this particular list. Dreadstar, you have my thanks.
(4) "Maybe someday every U.S. Supreme court case will have an article and this will be the best way to organize them (though United States Reports is only the most important of several Supreme Court reporters so it hardly seems proper to group in that manner exclusively), but at the moment this is just a directory and red link farm." I invite you to add other citations to these articles to give them more depth as references. This list is doing a good job of organizing SCOTUS case articles already.
(5) "Also note that Lists of United States Supreme Court cases provides much of the same material in an annotated context and that there is hardly a need to have two different lists that essentially do the same thing." It may provide some of it, but it doesn't provide the same thing. It doesn't have the red links which are useful in creating new articles.
You continue:
(7) "First of all, the issues of whether a list is structured and whether a list is valuable are two different issues that you are merging into one." The list is both structured and valuable. It is structured because it is chronological and organized by volume. It is valuable because it appears to fulfill all three of reasons why one would want to keep a list: It is good for information, navigation and development.
(8) "A list of my favorite bathtime gurgles in the order in which I dreamed them up would not satisfy criteria one just because it was chronological, but it would be structured." See answer to (7).
(9) "(T)he definition of valuable in this context is not whether it is useful for creating new articles." One of the reasons it is valuable is that it is good for development.
(10) "Please read criteria 3 again where it says that lists that are primarily useful for determining the progress made on wikipedia should be on a project page and not in the mainspace." To finish the quote, "if the list is not otherwise encyclopedic." This seems to be the real bone of contention. You don't think that a complete list of US Supreme court cases is encyclopedic. Well, I admit, there is room for debate here. Is this list encyclopedic? I would argue that it is, and that it does in fact communicate where we are in our goal of creating an article for each case. It fulfills the part of criteria 3 that you didn't highlight: "The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of Wikipedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written."
(11) "How you get that it fulfills criteria two is particularly mystifying because navigation is not possible through a series of redlinks: if there are not articles extant, a list cannot be used for navigating wikipedia." As explained before, this one page is part of a much longer list, which navigates through the table at the bottom of the page, and many of the cases have articles.
You responded to my comment:
(12) "Your strawman is not helping things you know." A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. I don't think I've misrepresented anything you've said but if I have I apologize.
(13) "You stated above that because the list is chronological it automatically fulfills criteria one. I merely gave an example of a chronological list that would not fulfill criteria one." Criteria one says that "Examples would include lists organized chronologically" So actually, I would say a chronological list of your "favorite bathtime gurgles," in fact does satisfy criteria one. My point was that such a list would fail WP:Notability. Sorry that was a little mashed together.
(14) "If you cannot separate a hypothetical from personal opinion, we may have a problem. We are talking about the list and whether or not it conforms to policy." I agree.
(15) "Never have I argued that the cases themselves are not notable." I believe this could be a reference to my response to Mandsford who said "Even the average lawyer is not in a position to write a Wikipedia article that "explains" the meaning of a court decision." I didn't say that you, Indrian, did argue that the cases are not notable. I believe that this may be a strawman argument.
(16) "The question is whether the list as it stands conforms with policy. I think it does not. You think it does. That is the issue." That does appear to be the issue.
(17) "There is no problem with these lists remaining in a wikiproject space devoted to Supreme Court cases, but it seems to me criteria three suggest they should not be in the mainspace." Criteria one and two (and I would argue three as well) are in favor of keeping the list where it is. It doesn't say on WP:LISTS that all three criteria must be satisfied or even that lists need to satisfy any of those criteria. It just says that those are the three main purposes for having a list, there could be others that would be valid reasons for keeping a list in wikipedia that does not fulfill those three "criteria" as you call them.
I hope that will be a sufficient answer for why we should keep this list of SCOTUS case articles now and in the future.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I still disagree and am not going to rebut your points because I would just be repeating myself. I would like to state that I know what a strawman is and that you did indeed engage in that fallacy when you misstated that my hypothetical constituted my opinion that bathtime gurgles (a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference by the way) are more important than Supreme Court cases. It may have been an attempt at levity, but if that is the case, I think it failed. Anyway, apology accepted. Indrian (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, a Hitchhiker's reference. I missed that one. I guess I did assume that what you were writing was actually your opinion. It's hard to pick up on written sarcasm. Sorry I couldn't convince you.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets the requirements of WP:LIST purposes: information, navigation and development. Dreadstar † 01:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Ack. How many times do we have to do this? This is the sixth time, so I'll simply pull a quote from one of the previous times this discussion has happened:
    Keep. There are over 30,000 U.S. Supreme Court cases; if WP:SCOTUS created 100 articles per week, it would take over 5.5 years to complete all of the cases. Is that an argument to delete the lists? No, it's just a simple justification for the number of red links. Hopefully, one day, all of those links will be blue; it won't be today or this year. There are very few complete lists of U.S. Supreme Court cases available online; before this, the only publicly accessible one that I know of was the U.S. Supreme Court's, and that list was hard to find for even an incredibly capable web surfer. These lists are unbiased, accurate, informative, and useful. These lists are unable to be replicated using categories due to the nonexistent articles. However, as for notability, every U.S. Supreme Court is binding on the entire United States. To try to argue that what they rule is uninteresting and therefore the lists of articles should be deleted is ludicrous. Additionally, this very debate has come up before and was not only closed as "keep," it was closed speedily. These lists should stay.
    --MZMcBride (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep A list such as this is a useful navigational and organizational tool. I expect that each of the cases have multiple substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources, as would be seen by a search of Google book. This is in addition to legal textbooks. They generally don't get to the U.S. Supreme Court unless they have a high degree of importance, and they are typically important thereafter as interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Edison (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The concensus of several previous AfDs of other lists of SCOTUS cases are notable and valid lists. This may want being documented in the notability guidelines, along with geographical features and the like. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Is there a way to salt these lists from further afd's?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - As I have said before, Having theses articles (even the redlink ones) ordered into lists like this is preferable to having them all lumped into one big category. And regarding questions on how this this satisfies WP:LIST, the lists themselves are notable. Fosnez (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, the the intent is to work towards "an article about every single published opinion that is handed down by the United States Supereme Court"; this is an excellent project. These cases are the high points of US law, and represent the small and most notable portion of the many court cases--in modern times, about the most notable few hundred of all the US legal cases a year. Aren't the UK people here doing something similar? Just what WP should be doing. Would we had more such projects! We'll still have enough room and enough editors left for all the childrens' televisions episodes. We can't do all of X is an obsolete argument. It's not just not being paper, it's the hundreds of thousands of editors & their diverse interests. DGG (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • There is nothing wrong with a project to document and summarize every Supreme Court case. There is also nothing wrong with a series of wikiproject subpages that brings together information such as this as part of an effort to bring such a goal to fruition. WP:LIST clearly states that these kinds of lists should not be in the mainspace. There is already another list at Lists of United States Supreme Court cases that deals with the cases we already have articles for. The US Court Reports list is merely a directory in violation of WP:NOT and a redlink farm that would better be served as a wikiproject subpage. You may disagree with that position which is your right, but try not to put up a strawman that distorts the views of the nominator. Indrian (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Would note that three of the cases on the list now have articles written on them. Davewild (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Similarly, when volume 113 was nominated for deletion, Cdogsimmons endeavored mightily (and succeeded) to make many of those red links blue. As MZMcBride said, it's going to take us many years, but progress is happening. I see the lists by court popping up on my watchlist all the time as people add new cases.--chaser - t 09:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep; these lists are useful for the purposes of development and, someday, navigation per WP:LIST. The Lists of United States Supreme Court cases and the lists by court indeed deal (almost) exclusively with those cases we have articles for and thus are unsuited for the purpose of development. Actually they link to articles of this type for a complete list. --Huon (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Supreme court cases are, especially in common law countries like the US, very instrumental in defining the law in the country, and receive a lot of attention in the legal community. That is why such cases are considered notable. This page is a good navigational aid for those articles, since it sorts them in chronological order. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep; hugely important and informative list. If we are ever going to have complete coverage of all cases -- and we should IMO -- we need these lists to provide redlinks. Others above make good points as well, as regards navigation and organization. Remember that lists are still good for Wikipedia, and have a function just as important as, and separate from, categories. Antandrus (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was keep and cleanup (non-admin closure). EJF (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blathur

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

Notability - this village is non notable, and the page itself is written in a NPOV. Its a graffiti page... speedy delete please. Thanks. T/@Sniperz11 editssign 21:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Villages are notable, but the article needs some major cleanup and a rewrite. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment there's no information on this village from the Census of India website, which is quite comprehensive and Google Maps doesn't know it. Does it exist? I think it might, but I'm not sure. Neutral because I'd kicked this page to Sniperz for his assistance in clean up. Travellingcari (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. This article verifies the existence of the village and villages are generally held to be notable if their existence can be verified. Davewild (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and Move to Blathur, Kerala State, add "India" if need be.

the place does exist according the the information I've got. Mandsford (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment here's a bit more including some form of code. I don't know where to start with this one since I'm not sure what we'd make a stub of. It's odd for a town that's a "stronghold" per the article Davewild/Mandsford found has so little coverage. I don't know if there are possibly Malayam articles -- can't tell since that's not a Google option to search in. Travellingcari (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The village is notable, however, the article is in bad state and needs to be rewritten. Dr. A. Salih (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - The main problem here, even though the village is obviously notable is the lack of information available. In fact, the Census of India Data and the official website of Kannur district dont even list Blathur. However, State Bank of Travancore has a branch in Blathur and has shown that on their Branch list. Please help by providing any information on the village. Thanks. T/@Sniperz11 editssign 13:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Procedural Question - and I'm already familiar with 'villages are inherently notable', 'OSE' and its variants and precedent, so this is separate from that. Even with every Wikipedian doing his/her best on familiar areas , there is *no way* we're ever going to have an article on every map dot in the world. My question is why keep this article on precedent when we frequently hear the discussion, consider each article based on its own, not a list of precedents. Admittedly that's often used when people want to keep Article X when similar articles have been deleted or don't exist, but I see that appplying here. If the official government site (census) and larger area (Kannur) don't find it worthy of mention, where are we going to find verifiable sources? Further, how is it ever going to be an article? I could see it gaining notoroety in the future and *then* an article being created but I don't see the point in having an essentially empty article (created by a CoI possibly for his/her own map dot) just because villages "are notable". I'm still officially neutral, but I'm curious to answers to the question. I don't think this is a bias issue since the same could be said for mapdots anywhere in the world. Travellingcari (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • procedural query Why is there no afd tag on the article? Does this invaidate the AfD? --Paularblaster (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I've added the tag T/@Sniperz11editssign 00:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Keep as nom withdrawn. Non-admin close. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Beach School

The Beach School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a procedural nomination. I originally speedied this article while backlog clearing, but a user asked me to restore it and post to AFD as controversial. I don't really have a stand on this article. bibliomaniac15 21:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eóin (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I thought the current guidelines were that secondary schools generally were kept. The page needs some work, and I've tried to wikify and improve - but I think the article can be improved, rather than deleted. Other schools of this type have had pages for a long time. Nfitz (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I think the cleanup has been satisfactory. Please close this AFD as withdrawn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibliomaniac15 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 7 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. Ѕandahl 05:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jo Bingham

Jo Bingham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There's an imdb page that lists one minor TV episode and a handful of theater but I can find no reliable sources covering her acting. Sounds like small local productions and doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO for creative professionals. Travellingcari (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete sorry but the notability guidelines aren't met. Polly (Parrot) 19:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N --Sc straker (talk) 03:26, 13 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. --Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hampton township school district

Hampton township school district (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Orphaned well over a year, and consists mostly of nonsense; virtually no substantive work ever done on this article throughout its life Tenebrae (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep and cleanup. A page move to its correct name can fix the orphan status. One paragraph of POV can be quickly removed. The rest of the "nonsense" is statistical information. School districts are where primary and middle school pages are merged/redirected. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, per the current rules regarding school districts. Alternatively, merge to Hampton Township, Pennsylvania. A few additions can be made to show that the district has Central, Poff and Wyland Elementary schools, Hampton Middle and Hampton High. If you don't like the "What the heck is a talbot?" comment, then you edit it out. A lot easier than doing the tagging and nominating bit. Mandsford (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. All school districts are notable, and local newspapers probably have some coverage of the district's activities. --Eastmain (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Keeping this is consistent with guidelines and categorization of other school districts. Doczilla (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Well, heck, if I weren't convinced before, then Doc brought me over! Anybody know the procedure for my withdrawing this, if that's an option? I'll even volunteer to start the cleanup. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Although I'm not a fan of 'automatic notability', I'll admit to !voting without even looking at the article. Vibrant, well-written district articles are the best way to organize information on schools (regardless of which schools also have their own articles), and deleting the article gives the content nowhere to go. The article may be stubby, but that just means it needs more work. I may try to trim out some nonsense, though. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - as government bodies school districts are notable and play a key part in organising information on schools. I have started cleanup. TerriersFan (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - per TerriersFan --Daddy.twins (talk) 13:21, 9 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Cheney Greeley

Mary Cheney Greeley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

According to the article Horace Greeley, Mary Cheney Greeley was a suffragette, but the only thing mentioned in this article is the fact that she was Greeley's wife and that she bore his children. This does not make her notable. I haven't been able to find anything about her involvement in the suffragette movement. AecisBrievenbus 20:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. Not a major figure like Stanton, Willard or Anthony, but there are just enough sources for an article, I think. Her name was used to head a petition sent to protest the decision of her husband's Republican committee to table (set aside) any equal rights plank. She was part of the first Women's Rights State Convention in NY (1853), well before there was a national movement. --Dhartung | Talk 21:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Horace Greeley (even if he did take every opportunity to avoid her severe company); she also rates a mention in United States presidential election, 1872, since she passed away while he was campaigning, the only time I'm aware of that's happened to a major candidate during an electoral campaign. Mandsford (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep like all historical figures, she will be discussed in the appropriate print histories and is thus sourceable. DGG (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. A Google Books search shows that there are plenty of sources out there. A few of these seem to refer to Horace Greeley's mother, also called Mary, but the Google snippets show that the vast majority are about Mary Cheney Greeley. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:49, 8 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 both.--Kubigula (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holden Young

Holden Young (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Not Much and Everything (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

No indication of notability, fails WP:N. Google search failed to come up with any independent reliable sources. The only sources are the artist's official website and his MySpace page. SWik78 (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Added his album to the nomination. User has created several other pages that have been speedily deleted, delete these as well; he's local musician that has not yet met the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Jfire (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails WP:N. Note that the article about his band, Holden Young Trio, was speedily deleted twice. --Dawn bard (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, no sources for notability. --Jklamo (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glomp

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Glomp Articles for deletion/Glomp (fifth nomination) Articles for deletion/Glomp (second nomination)
Articles for deletion/Glomp (third nomination)
Articles for deletion/Glomp 2
Glomp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Anon nomination, from article talk page: I just came across this while randomly browsing internet, and appalled by this absolutely unencyclopedic material. this is senseless, i'm not going to make an account to finish nominating this but please vote to delete thanks. 218.219.212.168 (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Move to WiktionaryDelete. On the face of it, given the previous AFDs for this article, this nomination seems a bit of a waste of time, but in my view this is little more than a dictionary definition, and doesn't merit an encyclopedia article. It has refs, but these only really back up the fact that the term exists, and its source, and little else - what I would expect to see in Wiktionary.--Michig (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Wiktionary already has an entry for Glomp, by the way.--Michig (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as dicdef and nothing more, shows little hope of expansion beyond that. It's already in Wiktionary, so don't bother transwiki-ing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Nomination is just I don't like it. The article seems a reasonable stub with good potential for expansion. I've seen animé fans doing this at conventions and wondered what was going on. Now I know. The article might be merged with Hug which needs work too but that's a keep which can be left to content-editors. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article has been around since 2004, has had hundreds of revisions, and still doesn't really go beyond a dictionary definition - if there was potential for expansion, I think it would probably have happened by now. Most relevant Google hits are, unsurprisingly, also just dictionary definitions. --Michig (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You seem to be misinterpreting WP:NOEFFORT - this article has had lots of work on it and is still nowhere near an encyclopedia article.--Michig (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, the only reliable source is the St. Pete Times, and that's just a passing mention. None of the other sources is reliable, and there's already a Wiktionary entry so there's no need to move it over there. Corvus cornixtalk 23:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEO. Chuck (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I submit the equally paltry entry of the Shocker (hand gesture). The Shocker is an equal neologism and subcultural gesture, yet it warrants a wikipedia entry which consists of a highly similar structure and writing as the glomp article. Yet, there is no move for deletion of that entry, and especially not multiple AfDs for it. And, yes, you may comment that the "shocker" gesture has merit in the argument of censorship and particularly that of yearbook censorship, as well as senior pranks, but the incident wasn't even mentioned. If anything, merge with Otaku to perhaps discuss subcultural phenomena, but don't overall delete without calling into question other articles on subcultural and NEO gestures. --That Fish Chick (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Chuck (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I was merely pointing out that there are other equal neologisms with dicdefs as articles that have not ever been called into question as evidence to the fact that this is just a return nomination because I don't like it. I had suggested within the vote commentary to merge it with Otaku (although, admittedly, in retrospect, it would make a better subnote to Hug).--That Fish Chick (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The fact that other articles on similar phenomenon exist is not reason to keep this one; if you think Shocker (hand gesture) is a non-notable neologism, go ahead and put it up for deletion, too. It won't affect the outcome of this AfD, though. As far as my opinion, without anything sourced regarding the meaning or significance associated with the act of glomping, this is doomed to remain nothing but a simple definition, and thus should remain in Wiktionary. --Ig8887 (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and soft redirect to Wiktionary. JuJube (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have rewritten the lede to start turning the article into a description of the activity rather than being a dictionary-style discussion of the word's etymology. It seems clear that this is a notable activity and I have added another citation to demonstrate this. None of this activity took long and so the article's failings are more a matter of neglect than the impossibility of improvement. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Still no reliable sources. Some of the sources that are provided don't even use the word. Corvus cornixtalk 18:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • How can you possibly claim that an article which doesn't even mention the word can be used as evidence of the existence of the word? And you haven't addressed the reliability of the sources. Corvus cornixtalk 19:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Because, as I have explained, the article is about the activity not the word. For further explanation of the difference between a word and what it represents, please see Use–mention distinction. And the Stars and Stripes seems to be a highly reliable source. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, yes, the activity... you mean hugging? We got that article already. Hugging people at an anime convention and using a special word for it doesn't really warrant its own article. tgies (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The Stars and Stripes article just says that people hold signs up saying "Free Hugs" - it's a very weak reference. It doesn't mention "Glomp" and doesn't mention the activity of "glomping" at all.--Michig (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • ...and, even if it did mention the word, the word is still a protologism. tgies (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • lmao. — flamingspinach | (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • p.s. Delete plzkthx. I spent some time trying to clean up this article to make it a bit more tolerable. But here is yet another AfD. This article is exactly the pointless shit nobody needs. Also, nobody spells anime "animé", what? Colonel Warden: notable or not, the word "glomp" is indubitably a neologism, and I think it's prudent to admit a treatment of the subject matter pursuant to this fact. — flamingspinach | (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef. Wikipedia does not need an article specifically for what amounts to little more than an Internet slang term for "hug". An incorrigibly trivial article without encyclopedic merit or distinction. tgies (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Possibly redirect to Hug. This is in keeping with the present de facto standard of creating redirects for specialized terms and leaving it to Wiktionary to put those terms in their etymological and/or cultural context. tgies (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Do not redirect a supposed word for which we can find no evidence that it even exists. Corvus cornixtalk 23:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, can possibly be moved to wiktionary, the only real deletion discussion for this article was the first one, others were kept because of "keepers" arguing something along the line of "Was nominated and was kept so it's notable". I suggest a move to wiktionary and some mention made of it on the Anime article or some other one.--The Dominator (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It's already at Wiktionary, though if I were active there I'd probably move to have it removed for failure to provide evidence that the word exists. Corvus cornixtalk 23:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Yup, very obscure word, pretty much proves that it doesn't warrant its own encyclopedia article.--The Dominator (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:NEO. The article actually states the word is a neologism. Jay32183 (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That's because flamingspinach keeps editing the article against my improvements. We could move the article to something like Animé tacklehug but that would then violate normal naming standards which say that an article should have the name which is most likely to be used. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • flamingspinach did not particularly change the article in the revision you are speaking of. You had it as "seems to be a neologism" and flamingspinach changed it to simply state that it is a neologism. This is not a major change or a particularly disputable one. Either way, the fact remains that it is a neologism, regardless of who's calling it that and how sure they are about it. tgies (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Where to? There's already a Wiktionary article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgies (talk • contribs) 01:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment What is all this "There already is a Wiktionary entry" crap? Nobody said there wasn't, we're saying that it should stay there and be deleted from here, that's why we vote delete.--The Dominator (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Reading carefully, you'll note that the only people saying "there already is a Wiktionary entry" are saying this in response to people arguing that Glomp should be transwiki moved. tgies (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • keep. The inclusion of the word in such sources as Aaron Peckham, Urban Dictionary (Andrews McMeel, 2005. ISBN 0740751433), show that while it may be a neologism, it does not meet the strictures given at WP:NEO (the only sense that need concern us here). --Paularblaster (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Being basically a work of humor, the Urban Dictionary compilations do not necessarily reflect the general usage at all -- many entries have been chosen for their unusual or humorous nature. In addition, this does not change the fact that the article is essentially an attempt to dress up a dictionary entry with unverifiable claptrap about how it means something special to people who watch a lot of anime. tgies (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Is the St. Petersburg Times not a reliable source? --Paularblaster (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This is the entirety of what the SPT article has to say about "glomp:" "Hogan, who lives in Tampa and works at Home Shopping Network, seems to know nearly everyone here in Miami Beach. She greets many of them with a 'glomp' - an Anime word for big hug." In short, it's a reliable source that the term exists, and a reliable source of a very brief definition of the term. Nothing more. It's a reliable source for the Wiktionary entry. I don't see that the SPT article says anything encyclopedic about glomping.
Note also WP:NEO#Reliable sources for neologisms: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." The SPT article uses the term, but I don't see that it could be said to be about the term. Chuck (talk) 23:57, 12 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Priya Rai

Priya Rai (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article previously speedied twice due to vanity. No independent reliable sources to verify notability according to WP:BIO. Sources either have promotional interests or are considered unreliable (message board posts). Did a google search and couldn't find an independent article to verify notability. Vinh1313 (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete lack of reliabe independent sources. Guy (Help!) 15:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite all of that, I found it helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.248.118 (talk) 14:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - Since she has began to be very popular of the 'very few Indian' actress in the industry recently, if this article has not changed in afew months then i'd agree to delete.81.159.140.130 (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Do you have any citations to reliable secondary sources to support the argument that she is already very popular (when she seems to be very new) and is one of the few indian actresses out there? Vinh1313 (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No reliable secondary sources found. Epbr123 (talk) 17:19, 12 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 Jayron32 a G12 copyright violation. Polly (Parrot) 19:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] West Music

West Music (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete borderline spam article for a record store, written by SPA User:Westmusic, with no 3rd party sources showing notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also nominating:

Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete per author request. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US missile defence

US missile defence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
United States missile defence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Again, same as the previous articles user has created. They are all copy-vio and are up for AFD here and here. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 19:10, 7 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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe

[edit] Caitanya Candorodaya Dasa

Caitanya Candorodaya Dasa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Ism schism (talk) 18:57, 7 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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prabhupadanugas

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

Not notable, no independent references Ism schism (talk) 18:50, 7 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk)

[edit] One Star Story

One Star Story (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Seemingly non-notable band. Originally tagged with a simple {{notability}} but this was removed twice by an anon with no explanation or alteration. Sources barely acceptable if at all. tomasz. 18:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, reeks of vanity. Not notable, fails WP:MUSIC. ♠PMC♠ 18:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This article represents no notability, and does not pass the requirements of WP:MUSIC. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:18, 7 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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RASA (band)

RASA (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not Notable Ism schism (talk) 18:44, 7 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 22:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Market networking

Market networking (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unknown, looks stub class and never seen this term before, I can't understand what this article is about. May be promoting ski trip USA llc. - seeing as the editor's previous contribs are about that company (Conflict Of Interst?) RT | Talk 18:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, very little context, looks like a bit of a WP:COATRACK. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per A1 (short article with little or no context). Dethme0w (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:OR bordering on WP:MADEUP. 2 of the 3 "sources" turn out to be the Wikipedia articles for Facebook and MySpace. The third cite is a WSJ article about something else entirely. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable neologism about yet another method to Make Money Fast on the internet, and original research too. But as much as I hate this kind of article, I don't see this as a speedy candidate. Best to delete with full pomp and circumstance to create a precedent against re-creation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:22, 8 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 22:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to be a better customer

How to be a better customer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination after an endorsed Prod, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. ViperSnake151 18:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, WP is not, indeed, a how-to guide. ♠PMC♠ 18:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nor a place for POV-pushing homilies. tomasz. 19:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Send it to Dear Abby (signed by Fed-up Frogger in Florida), if necessary. Besides, everybody knows that "the customer is always right", hence, it is impossible to be a better customer. Mandsford (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As mentioned, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. JavaTenor (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above reasons. --Hdt83 Chat 00:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO Doc Strange (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, not only a how-to, but also an original research essay. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Co-ed Revolutionary Anarchist Liberation Union

Co-ed Revolutionary Anarchist Liberation Union (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete no indication that this group is notable Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Interesting, politically and socially active, notable within its field of interest (LGBT rights, women's liberation). Has coverage in a wide range of independent sources, including specialized and mainstream magazines, political commentaries, or a book by the best-selling contemporary Polish author. · Naive cynic · 22:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it can be sourced. While it may be all of those things you say and more, without third-party reliable sources indicating that, it's just your word (as the article's creator). For all we know, this group may have five members who meet in someone's garage. If it really is notable, you should be able to find some sources that discuss the group, their aims, and their methods (other than their own newsletter, although it would be OK to reference that AFTER you've established notability with other references). If this article gets sourced, consider my vote changed to Keep. --Ig8887 (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - unless purported "wide range of sources" can be produced. I could not find any. --BizMgr (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HellMOO

HellMOO (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  1. Delete nn game sourced to its own pages. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Delete, per Carlos. No attempt at legitimate notability.--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 08:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Only 99 non-forum, non-wiki ghits; non of which satisfy WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 09:36, 15 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. Pigman☿ 05:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bricolabs

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

non notable neologism, an IP has removed the prod Cenarium (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - might be famous someday; but that day ain't today. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 7 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. Ѕandahl 05:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Twenty Eight (Band)

Twenty Eight (Band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable local band with no assertion of notability. Trusilver 17:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable band who have only won some very minor local awards. SkeletorUK (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, Sorry but say someone had to do a report on it. And is it hurting anything to keep it. 168.216.71.129 (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Neither of which are legitimate reasons to keep a non-notable article. Trusilver 18:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Exterminate. So far, nothing has been confirmed. Yeah, pretty much sums up the article. RedZionX 18:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:BAND. — Satori Son 18:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:BAND. ♠PMC♠ 18:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete It's been around since April without verification of marginal claims of notability. Fails WP:BAND Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Knightstrike

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

A comic book character from a reality television show. Does not assert notability by itself, I'm suggesting deletion and possibly merging any useful information into Who Wants to be a Superhero. Trusilver 17:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, fictional persona created by/for a prospective reality show contestant. No notability. Powers T 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Exterminate, rather interesting, but ultimately non-notable, per above. RedZionX 18:50, 7 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] East German jokes

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

This is a completely unreferenced page, and is a list of jokes, which isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. <3 bunny 17:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Person centered thinking

Person centered thinking (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

As far as I can tell, Person-centered thinking is not a well-defined concept but rather a mish-mash of various pop-psychology and self-improvements ideas. The current article reads like buzzword bingo. I'd personally favour a redirect to some relevant general article but I'm not sure what's the best choice. All suggestions welcome. Pichpich (talk) 16:24, 7 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. Tikiwont (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Pauly

Nick Pauly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article fails to meet any WP:NOTE standard and is clearly some kind of inside joke or is otherwise wholly irrelevant. College newspaper writers, particularly ones lacking in any type of public recognition, do not meet notability standards.President David Palmer (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • DELETE, fails WP:BIO, appears to be the author talking about himself or his buddy. NN.--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 08:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. Although admittedly a small consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lucy Dixon

Lucy Dixon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Probably non-notable actress. I do have a slight WP:COI here, knowing someone who knows her, despite not knowing her personally, so whether I was wrong to put this up at AfD is one thing. Solumeiras (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • MERGE/REDIRECT into parent article, actress falls short of WP:BIO on her own, but still is mentionable in the parent.--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 08:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - article doesn't mention her parents and she is already mentioned in List of characters in Waterloo Road. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Note, Ich meine nicht Eltern, aber die Hauptartikel (Parent Article). Ist das was Sie gemeint haben? --Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 11:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah well, I just noticed her age (13 Jahre). In any case the Cast section of the main article just redirects to List of characters in Waterloo Road and there isn't much to merge. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:27, 15 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. Ѕandahl 05:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] M. Haroon Abbas Qamar

M. Haroon Abbas Qamar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is written as an advert, and it seems to fail WP:BIO. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - I suspect a conflict of interest as the author of the article (Haqamar (talk)) sounds suspiciously like a contraction of M. Haroon Abbas Qamar. It also (per nom) fails WP:BIO and does read like a CV. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm surprised it wasn't speedied. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:45, 7 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, since original research issue has been addressed, all this article needs is to cite the sources into the article. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Multiracialism

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

Original research from a free content website. If any notable use is found it can merged with multiculturalism.YVNP (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Opposed. Multiracialism is a materially different policy than multiculturalism. Mcarling (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: if sources are added that verify what is said in the article then I would say keep but as it stands now it is unsourced and OR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woland37 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, as stated by Woland, the article seems to be encyclopaedic, but is in desperate need of references and notability. Give it this, then I will change my vote to keep!--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 08:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This article needs cleanup, not deletion. The concept of multiracialism is apparently well-known and much used, as evidenced by the 1,170 (!) Google Scholar hits[15], 39 of which have multiracialism in the title[16]. There are similar results for Google Books and News. Please, a bad article on a good subject is not bound for deletion but for improvement. Fram (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Fram. The article's only flaw is talking nearly exclusively about Singapore; that text is not even bad text, it's just not balanced coverage of multiracialism elsewhere. If we must, we could always cut out the stuff about Singapore to make a shorter, more balanced stub, but that doesn't require deletion of the article. Mangojuicetalk 15:59, 15 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 procedural closing. Article appears to be already deleted at this time.. Pigman☿ 05:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sameet Sangha

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


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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regional Air Services (Czech Republic)

Regional Air Services (Czech Republic) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is since its creation in March 2005 completely unsourced and i am not able to found any source by google or any search engine. Company of that name also do not exist in czech trade register (http://portal.justice.cz/uvod/JusticeEN.aspx). Jklamo (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per that. If there were anything to show that this actually exists, then the one sentence stub might be entitled to stay. The entire article, however, consists of the sentence, "Regional Air Services is an airline based in the Czech Republic", and Jklamo's search indicates that even that lone claim is unproven. Mandsford (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: No evidence that this airline exists - AND no assertion as to its notability if it does exist(although there is a Regional Air Services in Tanzania [17]) (which may or may not be notable).Nigel Ish (talk) 20:41, 7 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 put I've also placed a cleanup tag, this article needs some work and some expansion.--JForget 00:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russian legal history

Russian legal history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The sole contributor jumped into a really huge job, which sizzled: he is gone for two months now, and the the page is literally nothing but a chaotic collection of random names of Russian lawyers. And to add an insult, the fame of many of them has nothing to do with the development of Russian jurisprudence. I say delete this page which squats a valid topic and only keeps a misleadingly blue link. `'Míkka>t 05:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - so the page needs clean-up and significant work; but you said yourself it's a valid topic. This is a content issue, not a deletion issue. matt91486 (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. No valid reason for deletion. This is a typical article that needs improvement.Biophys (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep not a good article but 2 months isn't enough to tell if organic growth will work or not. The topic is certainly valid and if more sources were added there would be plenty of material to work from. When at the same time those sources can't be too hard to dig up I don't see this as a deletion candidate yet. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a bit messy and list-ish, but that can be fixed with editing. AFD is not cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 21:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a perfectly good legal stub, with two WP:RS. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Are you people blind or what? The article has no content at all! It is just a random list of names. `'Míkka>t 01:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Please be civil. If you look at our comments, we all said that the article isn't in good shape right now. But content issues do not belong in articles for deletion. The topic is encyclopedic and so there is no reason to delete it. matt91486 (talk) 04:42, 11 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 Professional wrestling throws#Tiger driver. Justin(c)(u) 00:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tiger Bomb

Tiger_Bomb (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Tiger Bomb Comment it is a real move by wrestlers --PaysonSmithHall (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment What is your rationale for deletion? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete One wrestling move itself is not notable enough for an article, however it could be included within a list of wrestling moves, such as in a variation of the Powerbomb. Also the article has very little context, and almost reads as nonsense, so this could be speedily deleted. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, there is no evidence that this is actually the name of a move, or if the move even exists. Nikki311 23:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki311 18:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • DeleteA tiger bomb is a sitout double underhook powerbomb, nothing more, does not deserve its own article, but could redirect to it.LessThanClippers (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I just looked at the article we have for Powerbomb and the Tiger Bomb is referred to the article here. Might this be changed to a redirect to the wrestling throws article? Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Ugh. While some wrestling moves are notable enough for separate articles, specific variations of those moves are not. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:15, 9 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 -- Y not? 16:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zionist hunter

Zionist hunter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original Research, NNPOV, No Sourcres Yossiea (talk) 15:27, 7 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. Ѕandahl 05:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANGELICA HOPES

ANGELICA HOPES (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Asserts notability as poet, but doesn't identify the supposed awards she has received. Article cites no sources. Also, written in a promotional/gushy tone. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also there's this at the bottom of the page "There has been numerous Wikipedia search for writers and authors for Angelica Hopes name so Writers Club have included her biography here in Wikipedia." This can't be verified. Who are "Writers Club" (who are also the user who made this article)? I'm really leaning towards WP:SPAM here Doc Strange (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as nn-bio, with a side of WP:SPAM. This so-called "club" (a role account) has no other topics. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Classic self-promotional autobio. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Angelica Hopes" gets minimal G hits, and I don't see much of relevence besides an official site, which this article seems to be heavily based on [18]. These so-called awards that she's won are unidentified and unreferenced, so no real claim of notabilty there either. Even assuming good faith by the creator, this article fails WP:BIO. PC78 (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete promotional article by SPA, claims of notability but no solid refs. JohnCD (talk) 19:36, 8 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. Mangojuicetalk 16:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ron McKelvey

Ron McKelvey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable former con artist. One incident does not make a person notable. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I'd also point out that, as per WP:BLP1E, when "a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime," a separate bio page may not be needed. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This is notable because its the last time a player fradulently played Div I NCAA football that we know of. This was a huge story in college football in late '95 and early '96. SI and many other publications did stories on it, but I haven't located any links for them yet. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - No opinion on the notability yet, but I've added a few possible sources to the talk page. If it is kept, it probably should be moved to Ron Weaver. --Onorem♠Dil 15:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I think Ron Weaver would be good, but I think most folks still remember the story as Ron McKelvey, because he played the entire season under that name. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Perhaps, but lots of sources still doesn't make him notable enough. There's still the WP:BLP1E component of bio articles. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The info checks out, and it got significant coverage at the time. Should be a redirect to Ron Weaver, as suggested by OddibeKerfeld. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I vote keep, It is significant and Is not hurting anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.216.71.129 (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Nightscream (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep:I remember this. It was a big story. EdRooney (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete seems to fall just short of WP:BIO.--Sallicio\color{Red} \oplus 09:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion that this band is notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sidewalk Fiction

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

Non-notable. "Sidewalk Fiction" -wikipedia brings only ~1500 hits, and most of those are Myspace and other self-promotion sites. Kingturtle (talk) 14:55, 7 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 speedily deleted, author blanked page - WP:CSD#G7. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Massimo Gasbarroni

Massimo Gasbarroni (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Written by Massimo.gasbarroni (talk · contribs) who almost certainly has a strong conflict of interest. Does not have any sources and does is not notable enough for wikipedia. And it tone is wrong; it reads like an advertisement, and it is unlikely that it will ever be cleaned up.Jon513 (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - yes I have been watching this page for a while now and hoping it was going to get better. I'm inclined to agree that this is an autobiography and certainly not a good article. MSGJ (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - I hardly know where to begin. Bad article, not notable, conflict of interest. Article has also been speedy deleted in the past. Tomdobb (talk) 13:17, 11 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, vandalism was reverted. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brisco

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

Does not meet criteria in WP:MUSIC Donald Albury 14:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. What appears to have happened, though, is that this entry (which is supposed to be a disambiguation page) was recently co-opted and edited to be a page for the rapper. I've reverted it to back to a disambiguation page. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 15:11, 7 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 copyright violation per G12. - Revolving Bugbear 20:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Zelinsky

Alexander Zelinsky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. A copy-past article from a non-free website[19]. Notability is also questionable and may not pass WP:BIO. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. This should have been speedied for copyvio. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 13:49, 7 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carrot Communications

Carrot Communications (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:ORG. Moreover, it looks like an advertisement of a non-notable organization. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:CORP. — Satori Son 13:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Have edited the page as compromise. In the Wikipedia guidelines, it clearly states that small organisations can be 'of note'; this one is headed by the industry association chairman in the UK and I would argue is of note for this reason Ella22 (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ella22 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: a PR agency whose clients are IT or technology-based companies. Sorry, but if your business is public relations, and relates to tech businesses, my suspicion then becomes that you are aware of the usefulness of using Wikipedia for promotional purposes and to increase search engine visibility. So articles about businesses of this nature need to show notability from the start. A single industry award is not good enough. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:31, 8 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, due to the raised concerns regarding inclusion criteria and importance. Tikiwont (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of uncancelled television shows

List of uncancelled television shows (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An unsourced list of trivia about shows that were supposed to be cancelled but then weren't or were cancelled and then brought back; except the list explicitly does not contain reincarnations of earlier shows. Even if populated with some real info nothing here wouldn't be better presented in the individual tv show articles. In addition to this, the article makes no effort to assert why this should be notable. So, delete as unsourced and loosely associated trivia. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. I think this is a viable topic since there have been several very notable examples of TV series that were cancelled and then brought back. Examples include Star Trek, Jericho, Family Guy, La Femme Nikita and The Dick Van Dyke Show. Needs expansion and sourcing, as this appears to be a work in progress. However I feel this is a justifiable and viable list; it just needs sourcing. But that's a content issue, not related to AFD. 23skidoo (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - First of all, "uncancelled" isn't even a real word. Second, most of the shows on this list are either shows that were supposed to have been canceled but then were bought for additional seasons anyway a few months later, or they're shows that switched networks. Neither of these is an uncommon phenomenon. (Networks do change their minds and the conglomerates that own the networks sometimes decide to switch programs from one network to another.) To my knowledge, the only genuine instance of a show being taken completely off the air only to be revived much later on this list is Family Guy (which FOX canceled in 2000, but then revived TWO YEARS LATER after strong DVD sales). (Star Trek was canceled due to low ratings, but then became a cultural phenomenon in syndicated re-runs, which is NOT the same as being "uncancelled.") --Hnsampat (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, Star Trek was cancelled after its second season, and then brought back by NBC after a bug letter writing campaign. It was cancelled again after its third season. TJ Spyke 01:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • It wasn't cancelled after the second season. NBC was seriously considering cancelling the show at that time, but the letter-writing campaign kept the show alive for one more season (although NBC did move the show to the "Friday Night Death Slot"). My point, though, is that Star Trek was not "uncancelled"; it was saved from cancellation during its original run and then became a cultural phenomenon during syndicated re-runs. --Hnsampat (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
        • A re-titling of the article is easy enough to do if you can think of a better word than "uncancelled". 23skidoo (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that "uncancellation" is a trivial pheonomenon. --Hnsampat (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The list excludes Doctor Who because it's a revival rather than than an uncancellation. Phoeey. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Actually, in point of fact, the BBC never actually cancelled Doctor Who. They just didn't commission any new seasons after the 1989 season. There is a distinction here. 23skidoo (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep- useful list Astrotrain (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - this list would be useful if it were accurate; but it's not. For example, the WB became the CW, so 7th Heaven didn't really jump networks. matt91486 (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Exterminate - And this is notable, interesting, or generally useful how? RedZionX 18:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Clearly overly subjective which makes the list meaningless. Given that it leaves off the most notable show that belongs here, the current content shows why it can not be maintained in any useful form. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kudai's third studio album

Kudai's third studio album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Very crystal ball-like article on a potential future album. Only the barest assertion it's to happen. No titles, name. Creator removed prod without comment or alteration. tomasz. 12:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The single reference is very weak, and this information is already covered in the band's article. PC78 (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. TerriersFan (talk) 16:52, 13 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 Gogo Dodo A G7. Polly (Parrot) 19:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nadia Neves Pereira

Nadia Neves Pereira (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A number of candidates for the Miss Earth 2008 beauty contest, apparently the third largest such contest behind Miss Universe and Miss World. This may be, but it is equally clear that a number of the candidates are completely non notable, since they have received no attention thus far. Author removes ProD (which is acceptable of course), so I bring it here for AfD attention. Two Google hits in combination with Miss Earth[20], 9 if you only use her name[21]. She was the cover model for one magazine once, which is hardly sufficient. Fram (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as per WP:NOTE. Becoming a candidate for a contest doesn't make someone notable. Moreover, I saw an article on current title holder of this contest under AfD tag. Editor who tagged that article fond less than 20 hits for the title holder in Google. So it is quite easily assumed that where champion's notability is questionable, discussion on a simple future contestant is absolutely meaningless. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The only significant editor has balnked the page, so I have tagged it for speedy deletion. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. Pigman☿ 05:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jacob Mellis

Jacob Mellis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO#Athletes and WP:FOOTY/Notability as has never played in a fully pro league. Am also nominating

  • Jan Šebek
  • Stuart Searle
  • Ricardo Fernandes (born 1989)
  • Sergio Tejera
  • Fabio Ferreira
  • Per Weihrauch

As they all fail for the same reason. None of them have a squad number, and none have played at international football at U-21 level. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete All - reserve/youth team players = non notable. If/when they make a fully professional league appearance, then they will merit an article. - fchd (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all for failing to meet all appropriate criteria. Under 17 caps are not considered to confer notability ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, what ChrisTheDude says is true. Punkmorten (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Tejera. At least Tejera is meeting the general WP:N criteria (has received significant coverage in reliable sources). He has been named one of the 50 most exciting teenagers in the world game by World Soccer, one of the world's top football magazines, has played in the U-17 WC and '"sergio tejera" chelsea' get 4.820 hits on Google. Sebisthlm (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all, if/when they play at professional level the articles can be recreated. King of the NorthEast 15:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete and redirect to Crocker Land. Tikiwont (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crockerland

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

Unreferenced, poor quality and incorrectly named. (By g-hits, it's Crocker Land). Was going to rename it, but we already have a referenced (but short) article at Crocker Land, and the much better Crocker Land Expedition. Most of the content seems to be from a barking-mad blog at http://blog.m*sp*ce.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=23859111&blogID=109064704&Mytoken=8E7BB579-42AC-465B-81CC1A433FAEE21D16224021 or original research. (And the coordinates at top right are no where even near where Peary saw the mirage.) Delete says I. Sensiblekid (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Madness, delete. ♠PMC♠ 19:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Crocker Land. --Oakshade (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect, Current content is a crock :) Halfmast (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's unreferenced unscientific nonsense. We already have a better article per nom's remarks. Jellogirl (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was. Delete. A small, but convincing consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No Future Records

No Future Records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Record label that doesn't assert notability. Article claims that "it was considered one of the most important and influential record labels for the second generation of Punk bands" but has no references or incoming links. Lugnuts (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - plenty of assertions but lacks sources failing WP:N and WP:V. TerriersFan (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete over notability concerns. Clearly a minor label. No reliable sources that I could find to back up claims about its importance or influence. The label only existed for 3 years, and then folded. It signed some bands that went on to record more music, some are notable, but none of these bands seem to be especially important except perhaps in a very restricted subgenre. So I wouldn't imagine there is enough reliable material on the record label to sustain an article, and I couldn't find any.) Mangojuicetalk 16:26, 15 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 author and main contributor blanked the page (G7-Author blanking the page can be taken as an author request to delete). If not speedy, then still Delete per consensus below. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gramophone Records (label)

Gramophone Records (label) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable record label. The page reads like an advert for 3 (non-notable) bands. While the bands have some references, the label itself doesn't establish it's own notability. The page was tagged for speedy deletion in it's early development, but was "improved". Lugnuts (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The above points have now been addressed, however, it might be incorrect (and possibly unfair) to suggest that The Radio Science Orchestra is a 'non-notable' band. They were the first English group to use a Theremin live on stage back in 1994, since Jimmy Page's use of a single antennae 'Theremin-like' device during Led Zeppelin's heyday, meriting an article in The Face magazine at the time. Numerous articles followed in Esquire, NME, Melody Maker,The Guardian, Technologica, Future Music etc. TV and Radio features have included BBC, MTV, Channel 4, World Service and International Business News. The group has a close association with Lydia Kavina - Leon Theremin's great niece, and has worked with Dr. Bob Moog on a number of occasions. Two members of The Radio Science Orchestra Bruce Woolley (who co-wrote "Video Killed The Radio Star") and Chris Elliott co-wrote and produced the title track "Storm" for The Avengers movie -sung by Grace Jones and founder member Woolley has worked with many name artists. The RSO has performed scores of live shows including Glastonbury Festival (being interviewed on site for BBC's Late Night coverage by Jamie Theakston for Jools Holland), Alexandra Palace, The Electric Cinema, The Tardis, Bath Film Festival and a culturally progressive visit to Shanghai's Music Festival.
Furthermore, ONL is a brand new outfit comprising players of stature and considerable experience within the British Jazz scene.
Victor the Robot's debut EP was co-produced by Steve Dub who, is the credited engineer of the Chemical Brothers for some ten years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thereminvox (talk • contribs) 21:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
So the band's claims to notability rest on one of them using a Theremin, having a "close association" with someone's great niece and having an EP co-produced by someone who worked with an actual notworthy band?! Note to closing admin - the creater of the article also blanked the page on edit. Lugnuts (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no independent, reliable secondary sources to meet WP:MUSIC and WP:V. TerriersFan (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & TerriersFan. Notability is not transitive. Mangojuicetalk 16:29, 15 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 There is sufficient arguments from established users in order to keep the article with few in favor of deletion. --JForget 00:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian oil bourse

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Iranian oil bourse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wiki is Not Crystal Ball. When the actual Iranian Oil Bourse is opened (which after 3 delays is not really that clear when) then the article should be written with sources about what actually exists, not what is proposed to exist. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia:Crystal referred to when you make use of unsourced predictions, sourced information about when something is expected to happen is okay isn't it? Also the past history of its failure might be enough to give it some notability. --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment I would suggest point 1 at WP:CRYSTAL would be an appropriate reason, that whilst it might be notable if it existed, it's continually failure to actually exist drops it below the "almost certain to take place" required for a crystal ball article. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment In my opinion, WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant to this whole discussion, since it specifically applies to events. The IOB is not an event. It's a proposed institution, and the idea of this institution may merit an article regardless of whether or not it actually ever comes to fruition. -- anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.172 (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Although there are lots of citations, they are all very speculative, and cannot be classed as reliable. The lack of a firm opening date and the lack of a secondary oil market, plus the lack of firm evidence that projected contract volume will be significant leaves me unconvinced this will be a notable event per WP:CRYSTAL. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, the large number of references indicates that the idea of the bourse is significant and notable, whether or not it comes to fruition. Also we have a whole category for places that haven't been built yet: see Category:Proposed buildings. Cop 663 (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This nicely referenced article clearly indicates that the proposed market has not opened; it has, nevertheless been planned and announced for quite some time by the Iranian government. The bourse itself does not have to ever exist as a present reality to become worthy of an article; after all, there's been talk of building a Nicaragua Canal since the nineteenth century, and there ain't one yet. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is properly referenced and is a handy place for information about the topic. There is no requirement that everything in Wikipedia exist: cue articles about minutiae of fictional universes like Star Wars, Star Trek and various anime. Moreover, unlike these topics, there is significant media attention to the idea of a Euro denominated trading place for oil -- whether one is ever actually created. Comments by Gavin Collins above about the unreliability of references contained in the article are themselves unsubstantiated and should be discounted. --Ott2 (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The amount of coverage in reliable sources is substantial and establishes notability. Regardless of whether it actually happens or not, an article on the proposal and what happens to it is certainly valid. Davewild (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There are numerous sources directly from Iranian ministers and other officials involved with the plans to build the IOB, there's a source from Chris Cook, former director of the International Petroleum Exchange in London. So the plan to build the IOB is well referenced. The Nicaragua Canal article referred to above is a good example showing that just because a planned institution/construction has not yet been created yet, that does not make it non-notable. Boud (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whether the bourse eventually opens or not is irrelevant to the question of whether the topic is notable. It unquestionably is. --Dhartung | Talk 21:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment In my opinion, something has to exist before it can be considered "notable". It's had a long enough time as a "future" site, now that it has missed 4 deadlines, I suggest the article be deleted until something actually happens Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Notability is not based on existence, but on whether the thing has been noted. It surely has. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This webpage should absolutely not be deleted. It pertains to an area of knowledge and study... well worth knowing about for that matter. There is no reason at all to conceal, hide, or destroy (remove and forget) information on this topic (or any topic for that matter). Specifically, I am concerned that anyone would want to remove info on this particular entry and am suspicious of motives to do so. To omit pertinent knowledge is to skew the story; and the story of the Iranian Oil Bourse and it's attempted creation may well become a centerpiece in this segment of our worlds history. Let us continue to check the facts, learn from what is going on, and build up a knowledge base, correcting errors as we progress. Let us not "throw away" entire topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.13.153 (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — 165.91.13.153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Excuse me? You are accusing me of bad faith? On what grounds? I want to "throw away" this topic because it's an Crystal Ball article with very little foundation (just like the proposed site of the exchange hah). Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It has a very strong foundation in reliable sources. It is not a crystal ball article as you keep saying, it is about a real concept that has been reported. Why are you attempting to put this in with a policy aimed at sporting events? Ansell 22:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is an important page, detailing some important information, especially given the fiber cables being cut causing Iran to lose connectivity. People rely on sources like wikipedia to draw important correlations between articles like this and events of that nature. 71.61.186.160 (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment What does Internet submarine cables being cut by a ship's anchor have to do with an "Oil Burse"? Nothing. That's what.
Comment Iran never lost connectivity. The assertions that it did were based on a page on Internet Traffic Report showing a single router in Iran as currently being unreachable. Unfortunately, this has been trotted around blogs as "proof" that Iran has been disconnected from the Internet. Unfortunately for conspiracy theorists, this is completely and provably false. See here for proof. Also, Iran has missed several of its own deadlines to open the Bourse, and the really hilarious thing is how many folks seem to think this is going to be a runaway success. There is a lot more at play in world oil markets other than being able to use the dollar or other currencies, and there is very little reason to believe the Iranian bourse will even be successful. It's interesting, and a great propaganda and rhetoric tool for Iran, but that's about it. das (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • "Strong Keep" This page should be kept because it is an important part of history, negotiations and proposals. People need to be informed about what is going on and this page helps fulfill that. Why attempt to censor such information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonahtrainer (talk • contribs) 04:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Censor? It is not an important part of anything. It does not even exist yet. Macktheknifeau (talk)
  • Keep, though I feel like we could avoid this entire discussion by renaming the article, "Iranian oil bourse proposal". After all, no one can deny that the proposal exists and has been pursued through various well-documented stages. This article, then, documents the notable efforts to establish the bourse, regardless of whether those efforts bear fruit. If or when the bourse comes into existence, this article could be folded in as a History section to that article. --Ig8887 (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep!! This is a political game that is being played. We should be aware of it. If nothing else, it brings to light the delicate nature of the United States' control of current events. This is important, because it's the first time in ages that we're "on the ropes". We should all be aware. Call it the proposal if you want. Then, when it's online, drop "proposal". 72.183.192.220 (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC) //signed// —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.192.220 (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. What we call the article does not really matter. If it is generally known as the Iranian oil bourse we do not need to add "proposal" in the title, but should make very clear that's what it is. Projects under development are often covered for being simply that, a project under development. Whether it succeeds or fails it is well reported and thus adds an important piece of context for understanding Iran, world oil markets, regional and global politics, finance, etc. Wikidemo (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia isn't a place for highly speculative or wishful future predictions, but there are hundreds of articles for significant plans, Category:Building projects in particular. This is something that has hired staff and spent money, not some vague "maybe someday". 71.41.210.146 (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The reasons sighted for deletion do not match the Crystal Ball provisions. It is an actual project that has started. The call for deletion appears to reflect personal or geo-political bias. 05:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jleske (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep. Not only is this a real institution which is being sponsored by a country, it is also quuite possibly the reason for a coming war between Iran and the U.S.A. People have to a right to know why they are dying and killing, it sure isn't for the reasons that the politicans are claiming. If I see this article removed, I won't be donating to Wikimedia ever again. Whatever the admins personal preferences and views are should be irrelavent. The fact is that this exchange is already planned to open and will do so if the dollar stays weak is reason enough to keep it. Scott Kuehne (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The significance of this article is not purely determined whether this bourse will ever succeed or not. The very attempt to create is of major political significance. Both with respect to the US-Iran conflict and the discussion over Dollar or Euro traded oil. We should definitely keep this article. Even if the bourse WILL fail. It would then be turned into a useful historical document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roeschter (talk • contribs) 20:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep No reference to reliable sources in the nomination. An event or institution can be preceded by reliable sources and have a legitimate article. Ansell 22:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong, Speedy keep. Article is properly referenced and deals with a topic of great importance to international politics and economy - even if the bourse doesn't open, it deserves an article just because it was seriously proposed. Kwertii (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is fairly well written and provides lots of references. The subject is undoubtedly worth its own article in my opinion. Cacetudo (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I find another article about speculation, but no one proposed cancellation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Nukem_Forever Which is more probable of the two? . Anonymous, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.52.232.84 (talk)
  • Keep. Wikipedia should not have articles for things until they actually happen? Better go submit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture for deletion too then. Anonymous, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.89.209 (talk)


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

The result was delete. Ѕandahl 05:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Adam Howlett Show

The Adam Howlett Show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

declined speedy, but borderline A7. A local radio DJ by the look, that despite assertions on the articles talk page would seem to fail notability as well as a total lack of verifiable references. Pedro :  Chat  11:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - fails notability per WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. gb (t, c) 12:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation when sources appear. May be a COI in the article's creation based on username. Based on my research, the subject really is a radio presenter who has just begun his second seaon of broadcasts, but the show seems to be too new to show notability as Wikipedia defines it. I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up with a page at some point, but I can't find the reliable sources we need yet. Xymmax (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails notability. Local radio station personality/presenter who simply han't been around long enough or garnered enough independent recognition to be notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:28, 7 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. No prejudice against a future merge, that is a non-AfD related process in this case that does not need an admin, but would perhaps need further consensus. See WP:MERGE for assistance. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Analytical sciences digital library

Analytical sciences digital library (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, and does not assert notability -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 11:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually it isn't unsourced (there are several inline external links) and the notability is implied by the US national level of the enterprise and the cataloguing mentioned. However, I think merge with National Science Digital Library is likely to be the best move. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep significant American Chemical Society and NSF joint project. There will undoubtedly be references in the chemical and library literature to it. DGG (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG. John254 02:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG; I see no good argument to delete here. Merging is okay with me, but I don't like AFD to be the way that gets decided. Mangojuicetalk 16:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Middle man (AIM plugin)

Middle man (AIM plugin) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Queried speedy delete {{db-spam}}: see other pages linked to it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - It reads like an advertisement and doesn't assert notability. Also, as the product is only in its beta stage, does it count as WP:CRYSTAL? -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 11:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I've had issues with this page for some time, and actually got into a rather heated argument with the author about these issues, the primary one being that this page as it was initially was called Middle man directly. For more information, please see Talk:Middle man (AIM plugin) as there is a lot of information that should be considered when doing anything on this page. (Do remember however that at the time the only things underneath Middle man were the definition of the phrase and the AIM plugin - now there are more articles.) In addition, User:PhaseDMA should probably be invited to this discussion. --Ciaran H (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - seems to be a non-notable piece of software.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:13, 15 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. Renaming, different presentation, ... can be further discussed on the talk page if needed. Fram (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy

Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The links in this article are contained within the creation-evolution controversy article, as much as necessary. If there is a link that is ever in this article that isn't in the creation-evolution controversy article, then it either doesn't belong in this article, or needs to be added to the CE controversy page. So, the way I see it, the entire point of this article is to collect the links present in a single article. WP:NOT#LINK? Ben (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep and rename. I think this list meets the criteria of WP:LIST, which is listed explicitly as an exception in WP:NOT#LINK ("for lists to assist with the organisation of articles"). I suggest renaming it to "List of topics related to..." to follow the common practice for these types of lists. There are several dozen lists with names starting with List of topics... or List of articles.... If you think all of them need to be deleted, perhaps a wider discussion will be needed. --Itub (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I'm not opposed to articles that assist with the organisation of articles. I can't defend all of the articles from the links you provided, but picking one that I would be slightly interested in, List of topics named after Carl Friedrich Gauss is an article I would defend. Topics named after someone is not the same as topics about someone, and I would support the deletion of such an article. List of articles about Gauss? At best, there would be circumstances that would warrant a category. Now, in this case, we have the same problem, a list of topics about a topic, and I think it's a waste of time. I don't see why this list should ever contain links not already in the C-E article. Ben (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Filll, OrangeMarlin & ScienceApologist have each contributed to building this page. They are to be commended for helping to write neutrally about this conflict, despite their having a strong POV interest. Having a list of articles makes it much easier for contributors to provide neutral content. (Note: there is a similar article that ScienceApologist and I created a couple or three years ago listing evolution-related articses.) All if this is in accord with WP:LIST. It helps make a better encyclopedia. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep An extremely good navigational page. If anyone has difficulty with the neutrality of any part of it, the article has a talk page for discussing it. One of our highlights in this difficult subject.DGG (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm sorry but I still don't see why the article exists. Biophys and DGG, the neutrality of the article was never mentioned, so I'm not sure why it's being brought up. I have no opinion on the neutrality. I also fail to see how this article is any more useful, or extremely good, or a highlight, compared to the creation-evolution controversy page, so can I get some rationale here please? I would not have started this AfD if I could see why any of those statements were true. Specifically, what can this page offer that the creation-evolution controversy page can not? Ed Poor, I don't see how a list of editors has any bearing on the discussion, and again, I don't know why neutrality is being listed as a reason for keep. If I've read your argument correctly, you're saying this page serves as a tool to help editors keep things neutral. If so, why is it in mainspace? Ben (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Of the four types of lists that WP:LIST mentions, the only one that may apply to this article is a glossary, that is, "definitions for specialized terms in a subject area". Lets consider the articles at Category:Glossaries. Each of the glossaries exist to cover long lists of words related to a topic that could not all possibly be covered in an article about the topic. Glossary of alternative medicine is first on the list. Of course, you would not expect to see such a list of terms in the alternative medicine article (for the record, I didn't cherry pick that glossary. The same held for all the others I checked).
Because the creation-evolution controversy article is on such a narrow and focused topic, the only terms that should be listed in the Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy article should already exist at the creation-evolution controversy page. Importantly, since each of these terms exists in the article designed to explain the topic, it will place these terms (with wikilinks for curious readers) within some context. If there is some specialized term that a reader is looking for with respect to either creationism or evolution, then the place to look for that would be at Glossary of creationism or Glossary of evolution (or some such wording).
Instead of deleting this article, I would support it being split into each of those glossaries (Ed Poor already mentioned work on an evolution one somewhere), but either way, a glossary is useless for this single specialised article, and so I think WP:NOT#LINK should trump WP:LIST in this particular AfD. Ben (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to a category: would be much more useful that way. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN round of applause 10:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per the many rationales articulated above. John254 02:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ed Poor and DGG. BusterD (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Clearly a useful collection of articles for navigation by, but... surely this would be more usefully presented as a template or a category? Terraxos (talk) 05:36, 15 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.

{{subst:Afd top}} {{subst:#if: | {{subst:#switch: {{{1}}} | d = delete. | k = keep. | nc = no consensus to delete, default to keep. | m = merge. | r = redirect. | {{{1}}} }}}} {{subst:#if: | {{{2}}} }} delete per WP:SNOW, WP:OR. --Salix alba (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red Shift: 4 Dimensional Theory

Red Shift: 4 Dimensional Theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Essay trying to propose an idea thought up by the article creator; it isn't an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Contested PROD. Coredesat 08:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Tried that route, it's not a copyvio. --Coredesat 11:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:OR Essay. There's no place for it here. Alberon (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Kill, hoax/OR/bullshit. ♠PMC♠ 19:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In hopes of speeding a WP:SNOW decision, I'll add to the chorus of deletes. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 7 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commonwealth realm orders of precedence

Commonwealth realm orders of precedence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page offers no more information than the OoP page itself, ie. Australian order of precedence Cahk (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's just another unecessary addition to the already bewildering plethora of Commonwealth realm articles. --Gazzster (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to List of Commonwealth realm orders of precedence. This seems to be an indexing page, and all those ever have to be is useful. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, need for an index seems to be fulfilled by this category and the main article lists them anyway - Dumelow (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete- a template already links all the precedence lists Astrotrain (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom and comments. --Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 07:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn. — ERcheck (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Last Enemy

The Last Enemy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This book does not appear to meet any of the notability criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (books). The article's text is a clear copy vio from [22] and there is not a clean version to revert to. Normally I'd speedy delete but I've previously prodded the article and it was disputed on the grounds that another editor believes that "book is a notable primary historical account of the Battle of Britain", which suggests that the article might be on a notable topic and I don't want to look malicious. Google books [23] has a handful of references from other web pages for this book, including a few positive reviews, but I don't think that these meet criteria 1 at WP:BK and the article makes no claim of notability against the other 4 criteria. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I am also nominating the following related page because it is on the same book:
Falling Through Space (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and have falling through space redirect to this one. This book was first published in 1942 and was reprinted in 1988 because it was a 'classic' first hand account written by a pilot at the time. A little rewriting deals with the copywrite issue. The Battle of Britain 'might be a notable topic' are you serious? This is a book by a man who fought in the battle, was shot down and severely burned, had major plastic surgery, returned to action and died fighting for his country in 1942. For someone to sit on Wikipedia more than sixty years later and blithely declare something like that 'not notable' is entirely wrong. Nick mallory (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment I was suggesting that the book wasn't notable (the article is on the book), not the Battle of Britain or it's author. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Remember notability is not inherited just because "The Battle of Britain" is notable doesn't necessarily mean a book that is a first hand account is notable. --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • It's included in the Norton Anthology of English Literature, so must be judged to be a significant piece of writing about the event. It's been reprinted several times and in several editions, so it's not just a limited-run book. It was also written by a notable pilot of the era, Richard Hillary - he's even got an article at the Oxford DNB which claims this book as one of his significant achievements. Everything about this suggests that it should be included in an encyclopedia. Bob talk 12:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Nick mallory's comment has said it all. Bob talk 12:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Are you kidding? First-hand notable account of an important historical event, reprinted many times. Can the nom suggest a MORE notable account? Sheesh! How is this even listed? Sensiblekid (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you for assuming good faith and showing civility. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Satisfies everything related to notability that I can think of. 23skidoo (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nick mallory. Clearly notable. Maxamegalon2000 15:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per discussion and general obviousness - perhaps WP:SNOW ? matt91486 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability has been indicated. Doczilla (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment OK, it looks like I was wrong and this should be closed per WP:SNOW. However, no-one has added any sources which attest to the book's notability yet. I'm pretty widely read on WW2, but I've never heard of this book and wasn't able to find any reliable sources about it being particularly notable... --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There has been a few comments saying that the article satisfies everything related to notability but as nom has indicated it is clearly missing verifiable sources, also just because a book is reprinted many times doesn't make it notable I could easily find a school text book, a dictionary or a just a novel that has been reprinted many times. --Sin Harvest (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I would imagine there are some 'notable' examples of school text books too - I assume you're playing devil's advocate here? Just doing a quick web search should answer your question. As I said when I removed the prod, the book is quoted in many places as being a definitive primary record of not just the Battle, but also of the era, although they generally just say how notable it is as a book, rather than actually say a lot about it, i.e. BBC, Battle of Britain.net, Sheffield University, Time magazine. Sebastian Faulks has written about it in his book Three Short Lives. Also, interestingly, it seems there was a television film of the book made in 1956. There are also plenty of other things that can be found on subscription services. Some of these should probably be added to the article as well, although they generally just let the text speak for itself. Bob talk 15:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I was playing a bit of devil's advocate that was the reason why I only had all my things as Comments and not Delete, great job on the article by the way. --Sin Harvest (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Just did a search of some newspapers The Times came up with [24], [25], [26], the Telegraph came up with [27] etc, all seeming to suggest this is pretty important. Bob talk 15:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Oxford University Journal [28], New Statesman [29], The Guardian [30], Channel 4 [31]. How many more verifiable sources do you need? Bob talk 16:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Are all those references now in the article? Nomination withdrawn --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:12, 8 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 02:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uncle Max

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

Per this PROD tag, which was removed by someone who commented that the fact that the article was entirely original research was not "a valid reason for deletion" since "there are sources to back it up". Interestingly, they didn't add any. Also, take a peep at the first nomination, which resulted in Delete. --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. First deletion was for an article on a completely different topic (a minor character from The Lion King). This article is under-referenced, but appears to cover a notable topic - a TV show which has been broadcast on BBC. Some trivial searching within Wikipedia turned up this article which is a perfectly good source (I've copied over the ref). Zetawoof(ζ) 10:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. What on earth? Uncle Max is a fairly well-known CITV, now BBC, childrens' programme starring the notable actor David Schneider - we never delete articles about television series, even if they're terrible. Yes, it perhaps needs a few more references, but there is IMDb there, and as the above user comments there are plenty of "real world" references for it. The nominator's addition of a completely unrelated AFD nomination for a Lion King character suggests that they haven't researched this nomination thoroughly enough, or even read it - please be more careful in future. Bob talk 11:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I notice you removed the prod-tag without improving the article, however... furthermore, IMDB is not a reliable source. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough - there have been some more sources added now from The Times etc, which seem to rectify the 'original research' criticism of the nomination. Bob talk 13:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems to be a notable enough TV program. matt91486 (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - the notability guideline goes further, though: the article must assert its notability, with reliable third-party sources, and it doesn't appear to do so very well at the moment. It also contains unsourced material. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Containing some unsourced material is not grounds for article deletion. The Times reference seems like it should be substantial enough to make the article verifiable, and that's what's necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt91486 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable, sourcable, and sources have been added since the nomination. More work could doubtless be done, but this is not a candidate for deletion. --Sturm 08:55, 11 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 22:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regal Views

Regal Views (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An apartment block that is not notable. (I used CSD a few minutes ago but someone removed the tag. Probably for the better since buildings are apparently not covered by CSD A7.)

  • Evict. One of a bazillion apartment buildings in the world. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete on the basis that the buildings claim to notability is apparently Regal Views is noted throughout the region for its visibility from the local train station platform. How underwhelming is that?? I suspect a possible attempt by the owners to up the buildings profile. Pedro :  Chat  11:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn suburban block of flats. Sting au Buzz Me... 11:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, utterly non notable. Unless rubbish collection on mondays, a laundry room and dark blue carpets are now notable! - Dumelow (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Can I draw attention to this quote from the second paragraph: "Regal Views utilises a secured entrance for security purposes, further enhanced by a prominent ‘Please close the door’ sign." If you have to mention that it has a sign like that, you're lost. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Delete as non-notable. Majoreditor (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable buildings. Definitely not encyclopedic. Doczilla (talk) 00:07, 8 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. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orethu Family

Orethu Family (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another non-notable family history article, per WP:NOR. Avinesh Jose  T  06:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Doczilla (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Wiki should list all topics that are available unless it is vulgar or copied. This article could be a good material for research students. Nagaraj007 (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
— Nagaraj007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Maxwelljones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable and OR. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No references provided, none available. Relata refero (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete without sources to confirm the content, it appears to be original research. Polly (Parrot) 19:29, 12 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, nonsense. ♠PMC♠ 19:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Megadome

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

Seems to be about a nonnotable sexual act, maybe WP:MADEUP as well? Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 05:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete this hoax. A megadome fellatio search produces zilch. Doczilla (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utter rubbish. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, and for using phrases like "the common joe schmo". Possible that this is original research by a very limber author without a partner. Mandsford (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete stupid. JuJube (talk) 13:54, 7 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. Speedy deleted by Bongwarrior per WP:CSD#G3 (vandalism). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jade desumala

Jade desumala (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a hoax, by the number of G-hits (especially given the claims in this article) and the tone. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 05:37, 7 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. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Air Travellers Security Charge

Air Travellers Security Charge (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A list with less than zero context and no data/substance. Apparently an 'appendix' to something. It's not nonsense, but it's not encyclopedic either. Travellingcari (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Is there anything this could be merged into? --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, the only page of note that links here is ATSC which defines it "a fee placed flights using Canadian airports", which still leaves me with no idea what this article is about. The Canadian government has a page on it from which I gather it is some sort of tax on air travel to pay for security measures. However the current article is clearly not of any use at present and I am not even sure that this tax is notable - Dumelow (talk) 21:38, 7 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. Closer's note: The consensus here is for deletion as non-notable and in-universe with no evidence of significance in reliable, secondary sources that show real world impact. The injunction tag, IMHO, does not apply as it explicitly states that the injunction is related only to television characters and episodes, not all fictional topics. This is not a television related topic. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brotherhood of Makuta

Brotherhood of Makuta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research essay about a non-notable fictional group of characters. No real world context and all sources are primary. Ridernyc (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - per WP:FICT. Topics within a fictional universe are notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. The article only shows postings and links to blogs from bionicle forums which are not reliable. Dekisugi (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So you think direct connections with the author is still inaccurate, eh? 71.111.145.171 (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree that the article never establishes outside and significant coverage and as such agree it fails WP:FICT, while also failing WP:N straight-up. SorryGuy  Talk  21:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 05:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, no real-world context. (When plausible, as per the pending ArbCom case) ♠PMC♠ 19:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep- You do know that those "unreliable blogs" are run by the man who writes the story for Bionicle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.242.128 (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    That's precisely what makes them unreliable. Doctorfluffy (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep- You keep this up, you might as well do away with every non-notable thing in fiction. --BS01Swert (Talk) 19:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    It's not just fictional topics - nothing non-notable should be on Wikipedia. Also, see WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Doctorfluffy (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Unlikely such sources exist. Doctorfluffy (talk) 08:36, 14 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. Pigman☿ 18:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arno Tausch

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

This article gives a lengthy account of the subject's academic career, but nowhere does it mention other sources writing about the subject, as required by WP:N. I'm sure he is an important scholar in his field, but important is not the same thing as notable.

The article was written almost entirely by near-SPA User:RafaGS, whom the subject (as User:Arno.tausch) acknowledges is a personal colleague. I put a {{notable}} tag on the article a month ago, and the only response has been a long list of the subject's academic publications, which is not relevant to the WP:Notability issue. BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Provided information including positions held and published books is more than sufficient to justify his notability.Biophys (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I disagree, should all scholars who published books and held similar positions have their own article in Wikipedia for that merit alone? Rsazevedo msg 01:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Notability for an academic is the notability of his work, as judged by his colleagues. All scholars who have published enough academic books --books from reputable academic publishers that are published on the basis of peer-review by experts-- and that have thus have attained high academic positions should have articles in WP. That's like the criteria for authors, who become notable by publishing books; & athletes, who become notable by being judged by those in their field capable of competing at the highest level.
In this case, the bulk of his career has not been in the academic world, and it's a little harder to judge. There will need to be a check for reviews. But what this article needs is a careful check for copyvio--the style is that of PR. Almost everything seems to be said twice at least. There's a lot of name dropping, now partly removed, including the names of the universities everyone he copublished with has been associated with. This extends to a sentence about a particularly distinguished figure he did not co-author anything with, and another about a really distinguished person who contributed an article to a book he edited. And a sentence with links to each of the countries his books have been published in. This linkfarm seems too slick to be the work of an amateur-- but not slick enough that we can't catch it: "22 countries around the globe " is a characteristic phase, familiar from many articles on corporations. But that's a matter of editing, which is being done. I can't really blame anyone who took a look at the article and immediately thought to delete it. DGG (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 05:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Just one quick glance at Google Books makes notability clear http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Arno+Tausch%22&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=np. (Mind meal (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC))
  • Keep The endless debate about Arno Tausch is really absurd. Look at one of his most recent publications: Dutch University Press & Luxembourg Institute for European and International Studies, Arun Muralidhar & Serge Allegrezza (eds.) Reforming European Pension Systems, Rozenberg and Dutch University Press, Amsterdam, 2007. With contributions from: Jacques Drèze, Paul A. Samuelson (Nobel laureate in economics), Robert M. Solow (Nobel laureate in economics), Arun Muralidhar, Elsa Fornero, Onorato Castellino, Sergi Jiménex-Martín, Pedro Sainz de Baranda, Franco Modigliani (Nobel laureate in economics), Stéphane Hamayon, Florence Legros, Pierre Pestieau, Arno Tausch & Muriel Bouchet.
You might have perhaps other criteria of notability. But rest assured. DGG says: "This extends to a sentence about a particularly distinguished figure he did not co-author anything with, and another about a really distinguished person who contributed an article to a book he edited".
But Arno Tausch's contributions indeed are to be found in the company of such authors as Samir Amin, Immanuel Wallerstein, Kimmo Kiljunen, Andre Gunder Frank, all well-known from the pages of Wikipedia. In the book "Globalization: critical perspectives" Gernot Kohler and Emilio Jose Chaves (editors). Huntington, N.Y.: Nova Science Publishers, voila - you find these very articles by Samir Amin, Immanuel Wallerstein, Kimmo Kiljunen, Andre Gunder Frank, and - Arno Tausch and many others, a fact which DGG implicitly or explicitly denies.
In Dar al Islam (2005), Tausch published contribitions by Pat Cox, the then President of the European Parliament, by Samir Amin, Johan Galtung, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Andre Gunder Frank, and Bruce Russett, the Dean Acheson Professor of International Relations at Yale University, all included and documented in Wikipedia's English language pages.
To continue our journey into academic absurdistan. DGG says: "In this case, the bulk of his career has not been in the academic world, and it's a little harder to judge".
But as the very Wikipedia article on "habilitation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habilitation explains (habilitation, please note, is a peculiarity of the academic system in many European countries), Tausch is under the Austrian University system a LIFELONG associate of the Institute of Political Science at Innsbruck University. He thus never left the academic world.
Anton Pelinka, his long-time institute head and habilitation promotor, by the way is one of the most well-known political scientists in Europe, and was among others, the Joseph Alois Schumpeter professor at Harvard University. You find enough information about him, by the way, on the German page of Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Pelinka), not yet translated into English. Justice for the Austrian political scientist Arno Tausch also would imply to state here that Dieter Senghaas, one of the doyens of German political science (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Senghaas), drew from the works of Arno Tausch in his classics, which developed dependency theory in Germany:
1. 1977. edition suhrkamp, Frankfurt (Dieter Senghaas 'Weltwirtschaftsordnung und Entwicklungspolitik' 1977, on "Die Grenzen der Wachstumstheorie")
2. 1986. edition suhrkamp, Frankfurt (Dieter Senghaas and Ulrich Menzel 'Europas Entwicklung und die Dritte Welt' 1986, on "Jenseits der Weltgesellschaftstheorien")
3. 1988. edition suhrkamp, Frankfurt (Dieter Senghaas 'Konfliktformationen im internationalen System' 1988, on "Jenseits der Weltgesellschaftstheorien")
It is also simply wrong to say that "[Tausch's] bulk of his career has not been in the academic world". Arno Tausch taught at the University of Hawaii and continues his teaching comittments at Austrian Universities, from 1977 right through to 2008. Tausch began his publishing as a student at the beginning of the 1970s, and earned is habilitation degree at Innsbruck University in 1988.
That he joined the Austrian diplomatic service in 1992 and that he was the Counsellor for Labour and Migration at the Austrian Embassy in Warsaw, should not be an argument AGAINST his notability, in fact, it would be an argument in favour, just as his top-level ministerial career as statistician and foreign country analyst in in the European Union and International Affairs department of an Austrian Ministry ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_government) since his return to Austria in 1999, now in the rank of a Ministerial Counsellor. It is precisely his involvement in the analysis and publication programs of well-known foreign policy think tanks in countries like Luxembourg (the LIEIS Institute, see: http://www.ieis.lu/frames/outer.htm), Poland (PISM Institute - see http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/PISM) , and Turkey (the Ankam Institute and INSIGHT TURKEY http://www.insightturkey.com/is0603.htm), which even is an additional argument in favor of having a Wikipedia article about him. 4814 downloads for his book «Why Europe has to offer a better deal towards its Muslim communities. A quantitative analysis of open international data» at the jornal Entelequia, and his recent ranking among the top 5% authors of the RePEc Services over the past 12 months (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repec), should caution those who say that the article lacks justification. --RafaGS (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment People expressing positions regarding this article should please address their comments specifically to the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I will have time to say more tomorrow. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • As I said, the article was spammy listing everyone he had copublished with, complete with a link, and the people who had written chapters in books he edited and so on. that's not good article content. Of course, it doesnt necessarily make you non-notable, just causes people to look rather critically at the article. Being the professor of a student who is very notable can bring notability; being the student of a very notable professor does not. Every advisor has disappointing students. In the very nature of things, most students are less notable than their doctoral advisor. Being published by people who also publish good books is not necessarily notable--every publisher has better and worse titles. Teaching stints as an adjunct lecturer are not an academic career. We know what habilitation is -- it's the rough equivalent of a post-doc, except it applies in continental Europe in the humanities and social sciences as well as the sciences--its the intermediate step between a PhD and a job as an untenured assistant professor (or the various European equivalents). it's not a guarantee of a job, let alone tenure. I say what I said before: in spite of the best efforts of his supporters to exaggerate his importance to impress us, we will be objective and not reject it out of hand as would be a natural reaction, but recognize that he is after all sufficiently notable. Sufficient citations by colleagues does make you notable. That much is true--it shows you are regarded as a significant figure in the profession, and thats the criterion. Sufficiently, but just sufficiently.DGG (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I said weak keep, and i wouldn't think anyone wrong who came to the opposite conclusion. That a weak keep was challenged as not being strong enough does, frankly, not impress me with the strength of the case for the article. DGG (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom (hadn't actually said that yet). I don't care who he knows or how many books he has published. What I care about is the impact (i.e., notability) of his work upon his field. Arguments that would convince me include how widely his work has been cited, and whether he has been granted tenure at a major university (primarily the former). For his work that is political rather than academic, you need to show significant discussion of it by independent sources. RafaGS has had plenty of opportunity to provide such information, and has not done so. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per DGG. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 00:23, 14 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. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dick (insult)

Dick (insult) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nominating this page for deletion because it has no real significance, and its history of edits show that it is only being vandalized and there is no actual progression of content in the page. It does not cite any sources, and does not belong in an encyclopedia. <3 bunny 05:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Doczilla (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Srong Dlete This belongs on wikitionaryYVNP (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect and do not delete link. I don't know how Wiktionary works, but I'm assuming there's a way to click upon a blue link and one is taken to a dictionary. Perhaps we don't need an article (although there's precedent for similar articles) but we do need something showing this particular use of a word. Forgetting, for a moment, that this is an obscenity, there is definitely a need for a link to show up on the disambiguation page for (Dick), since that has meanings both insulting and non-insulting. Even as a vulgar word, it's ambiguous, referring to a body part or to a rude person. The latter meaning is referred to in this link from WP:CIVIL Mandsford (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I think an alternative is to give a brief description on the disambig page, and remove the link. I don't think it makes sense to make cross-encyclopedic references. <3 bunny 05:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Doczilla. JuJube (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll concede that as an article, it's a perfect target for vandalism... forseeably, a person's photograph can be uploaded to one of these type pages, fulfilling the prophecy "If you look in the dictionary under 'dick', there's a picture of you!" Mandsford (talk) 21:55, 9 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. Comments indicate this is a borderline case and arguments either way aren't persuasive to me. Pigman☿ 18:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Herrmann

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

This article gives a lengthy account of the subject's academic career, but nowhere does it mention other sources writing about the subject, as required by WP:N. I'm sure he is an important scholar in his field, but important is not the same thing as notable.

The article was almost entirely written by User:Arno.tausch, a close professional colleague of the subject whose own article (Arno Tausch) I am also nominating for deletion. I put a {{notable}} tag on the article a month ago, and there has been no response. BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. One should provide some external sources to justify his notability (e.g. articles about him; I do not know if citation index qualify). So far there is nothing to justify his notability.Biophys (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enough encyclopedic significance to justify having his article in Wikipedia. Rsazevedo msg 01:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep pending a check for reviews and copyvio. Another PR job, though he is apparently a little less distinguished than Tausch. The common factor might be the publisher. 17 books, but the most widely held one has only 106 US/Canada location--in a widely studied and popular field--this may not be as mediocre as it looks because they are books that would appeal mainly in Europe, which is not covered by WorldCat. More investigation needed. Reviews must be looked for. DGG (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 05:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom (hadn't actually said that yet). After discussing the relevant issues with DGG, we agree that this is a borderline case, and I'm still inclined to delete. Notability for an academic is measured by the impact of his work upon his field. This is measured primarily by how widely cited his work has been, and also by various honors such as tenure or awards from major professional societies. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per DGG. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:24, 14 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 despite the vast flood of anonymous users arguing to keep the article (this AFD was linked to from a 4chan post). --Coredesat 08:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Prindle

  ATTENTION!

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

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

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Mark Prindle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a regretful AfD, as I do like the work of the person in question. However, I don't think that he really passes WP:N right now. I'll be quite willing to change my mind if proper sources are provided, but right now I don't see sources demonstrating that he is truly notable. If they existed, they'd have been found by now. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Non-notable enough. All the external links supplied are his own site and his MySpace page? (which BTW is not acceptable). Google does not show much independent confirmation. The first page is mostly WP and his own site. -- Alexf42 03:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The article has existed since late 2004, but in all this time, I don't really see what makes him notable. He's quite well-known on the Internet in music criticism (an area I'm interested in - George Starostin is only notable for his linguistics, his music criticism is a footnote).--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 03:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It's worth noting that Mark Prindle has been doing music criticism on the internet for over ten years, but third-party sources remain to be found. If they are found, I'll be quite willing to reconsider.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 03:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I mean, the subject of this article is well-known on the Internet as a music critic, I believe, and has had his site online since 1996. He was also in a band for a long time and interviews various punk rock musicians. But that doesn't mean he's notable enough for Wikipedia when there are probably no reliable sources about him. Weird, I sort of dogmatically assumed that he was notable until it occurred to me that there's a good chance he's not genuinely notable through the lack of third-party sources specifically addressing Prindle.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean. In my case, I am not into the music scene and can honestly say I never heard of the guy before. Makes it easier to come with a fresh perspective and be more objective in searching for clues about notability. So far, my Delete recommendation stands, until proven otherwise. -- Alexf42 17:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Lots of pages link to Mark Prindle, but that's only because some articles are using his reviews in the infobox. I'm curious as to whether he should be considered a professional music critic or not given the informal writing he uses in the reviews. If he's not professional, then maybe articles shouldn't be using him at all as a source.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no significant coverage from reliable sources Corpx (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I too have never heard of him, but a writer whose reviews are widely cited is notable. DGG (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you please explain how it makes him notable if there are no reliable sources addressing the person in question? He does seem to be well-known in internet music criticism, but I feel he falls short of WP:BIO at the moment. He's a freelance music journalist, but Tim Jonze's article was deleted for the same reasons, I believe.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete There really don't seem to be any decent third-party sources available. Not notable. Tim Ross·talk 21:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep it. Mark Prindle is an influence on other internet music writers. Just look at the links section on his website for a PLETHORA of sites inspired by his. I might not know much about Mozart, but not knowing his work doesn't mean I think his wikipedia entry should be deleted. Mark Prindle is the Lester Bangs of our day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.7.16 (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Mark Prindle's website is itself a small version of Wikipedia. There are innumerable historical facts regarding underground rock spanning the last several decades to be found in his interviews. Just because he doesn't write for some large, corporate magazine like the Rolling Stone should not belittle his contribution to music journalism. I find the deletion of someone's entry into a public encyclopedia strange, as his popularity has as much to do with the mutability of the modern media paradigm as does Wikipedia's. Half of the problem with finding "significant coverage from reliable sources" is the fact that he is NOT part of the machine you are searching for "significant coverage from reliable sources" in. If this is a popularity contest, then please delete away... maybe there are a few hundred (thousand?) entries for bands that don't meet the same criteria and should be nixed. I repeat, don't delete!

Chowderdick (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how two paragraphs on an independent media figure, regardless of how small and cultish his following may be, are any more offensive and less important than the endless lists of useless pop culture trivia which are unavoidable on this site. How, for example, are the endless summaries of various television episodes any more important than a brief bio on a visible internet figure, with a popular website still in use? "I've never heard of him" is not a good reason for deletion - not many people have heard of Russian aircraft designer Andrei Nikolayevich Tupelov either, but that's no reason to argue that his article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.142.97 (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP. As I just added to his page: Mark's site is quoted or referenced in the following books: - "Neither Here Nor There" by the Melvins


- "Enter Naomi" by Joe Carducci


- "Hey Ho Let's Go: The Story of the Ramones" by Everett True


- "Hip Priest: The Story of Mark E. Smith and the Fall" by Simon Ford

He has been published in over a dozen print zines, as well as:


- the book "Lost in the Grooves: Scram's Capricious Guide to the Music You Missed"


- Maxim UK

He appears in the Pavement DVD "Slow Century" and is plagiarized on the back cover of "Perfect Sound Forever: The Story Of Pavement" by Rob Jovanovic.

Los Llamarada reference his site in their Dusted interview at http://www.dustedmagazine.com/features/704

His site is one of the longest-running review sites on the Internet, and he averages 2500-3000 individual visitors (25,000-30,000 clickthroughs) per day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.0.73 (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


KEEP. Mark Prindle is hilarious and a great reviewer. He's been reviewing for god knows how long and there's tons of articles that could be removed before this one. And they guy above me is absoulutely correct in saying that "I've never heard of him" is a moronic and unjustified reason for deletion. If wikipedia worked like that, there'd probably only be around 500 articles instead of over a million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munich hilton (talk • contribs) 07:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak nom withdrawn (if that makes any sense). The comments of the editors who voted delete above were made after new users had provided sources. It'll take time to investigate how in-depth the coverage is.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP Prindle. He rules! His site is an all time classic.

KEEP, without a doubt. The man's been maintaining his obsessively prolific page since 1996 and certainly deserves some credit. In addition to writing thousands of reviews, he's also interviewed many notable artists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.200.225.122 (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP Prindle. His longetivity and his pioneering of the form, in addition to the vast number of interviews, make him notable. Perhaps, only notable in terms of the internet and music history, but that's still notable than the Duke of Bulgaria in the early 1840's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.224.190 (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP. If the artists who grant him interviews are notable enough for Wikipedia pages, why shouldn't he be notable enough? That seems like a weird double-standard. I see no reason to delete his entry.

KEEP the man! He is important enough to link to this discussion, I think that importantness should be appreciated. Uzisuicide (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP this article! While Prindle may not be extremely well known, his writing is distinct and very influental, as can be proven by the number of copycat sites out there on the internet. His reputation is further cemented by the various published authors who have cited him in their writings. His writings and interviews remain relevant today, and there's no good reason not for this article to exist, regardless of how "obscure" the uninformed have decided he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.121.78 (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP. Are you kidding? For many, Mark Prindle is THE rock music critic of our age (90's-00's). He's regularly acknowledged (revered, openly emulated, etc.) by rock critics web-wide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.105.18 (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep it. Prindle is as notable as any pop music critic writing today, given the sheer scope of his website: he has reviewed entire catalogues of hundreds of artists, filling each review with insight and humor. As one of five people to sit through everything that Frank Zappa released, he deserves notice. As the man who dared to WRITE about everything Frank Zappa released, he deserves exaltation, or at least our deepest sympathy. His ouvre can be enjoyed as comedy, as one of the most extensive popular music resources online, or simply as an invaluable case study of obsessive-complulsive disorder. In any case, it's worth noting. If you're going to delete Wikipedia articles, at least start with the truly unremarkable ones, like South Dakota. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.180.242 (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP IT. I have used Mark Prindle's Wikipedia entry in the past, and found the experience to be both fun and enlightening. Why are you trying to deprive me of fun and enlightenment, only to gain a few credibility points as an encyclopedia which no one will grant you anyway due to your galling lack of completeness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.158.157 (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. As for internet music critics Prindle certainly is the most legendary one. As for third party sources, here's an interview with Prindle I made a couple of years ago for a Latvian web page: http://www.dialogi.lv/article.php?id=1583&t=0&rub=9. --Kazhe (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. He's almost like a cult hero as far as internet music critics go. He's interviewed many musicians from bands that at very least have a strong fan base and puts a new look to the same old boring internet review. Removing this would be criminal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.188.209 (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP. Mark Prindle is an important and notable independent online critic (indeed, very likely the first major independent online critic ever). He has interviewed notable members of the music industry such as Richie Unterberger of All Music Guide and famous musicians such as Greg Puciato. He has also written for numerous publications. Removing this article would contradict the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to spread knowledge of noted events and people in our cultures.

KEEP IT! Mark Prindle.com has been and still is one of the most entertaining, comprehensive and, most of all, reliable musical resources on the internet. He always review records based on his point of view, but, since he's a music fan and a rabid collector he's developed a diverse taste, not only restricted to what might be his favorite genres (mainly Hardcore Punk, 70's Hard Rock and Amphetamine Reptile style Grunge), but to most Pop Rock based music, offering an insight that's way more reliable than say, Allmusic.com- KEEP IT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.81.159.252 (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP. His site is obviously inspiration to countless other review sites that have since sprung up. Besides that his many interviews with many notable artists make his page just as important as many high profile magazines that contain similar content. The only difference is he doesn't get paid for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.100.9 (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP! Prindle is a legend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.33.211 (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP. Even if he is virtually unknown outside that niche, Prindle pioneered amateurish music critic sites (basically containing subjective, down to the bones reviews made by a handful of unpaid individuals) and is a cult legend among the community around them. Besides, you can't deny the sheer originality and enjoyability of his writing style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.37.150.62 (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP. Prindle's database is extremely well known within the record reviewing community and outwith, as seen by the multiple works that quote him. Known and loved by artists and music fans alike, his site is read by many for HIS content as opposed to research on the artists he covers (although this is another excellent reason to visit his site). His position as a "cult figure" should guarantee his place on wiki. As quote above, his website is accessed thousands of times a day, and there is no reason why a person with a following such as this who offers such a good service should not exist on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.99 (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP. Prindle is not only the best reviewer in the world but also a great great writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.41.233.2 (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Actually, I am somewhat convinced by some of these arguments, and polling is not a substitute for discussion. For example Corpx above didn't go into much detail before 'voting' delete.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP IT! Becaue of his contributions, he's got a fanbase of readers that keeps growing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.128.177.10 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP IT OBVIOUSLY!! Pooh....Prindle is the best rock reviewer on the net, and the pioneer of music reviews on the net which give a honest opinion about the music. No one has withstood the test of time as Prindle has, nor are anynone elses reviews half as interesting. A cult figure, he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.185.146 (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP. Mark Prindle is indeed notable; perhaps not in the ever-expanding universe of popular culture, but to those of us in the music industry who enjoy the internet (and in fact have done so for the past decade), he is an indispensable figure. There is no reason to delete a short article about a man who has contributed so much to rock music journalism. --207.30.185.10 (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP THE PAGE. Mark Prindle is an invaluable resource for music fans in the internet age. Extremely notable in the underground rock world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.61.16 (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Mark Prindle's name brings up over 24,000 results on Google, many of which are links to webzines and not just his own page as someone above stated. Add these to the published mentions and citations, and I'd say he's "credible" enough to have an entry on Wikipedia. Either that or the only people Wikipedia considers good enough to have an entry are those who are household names. Obscure doesn't mean bad. --Drifting182 (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP. His name keeps growing, both by internet and word of mouth. When I talk rock music with friends, I recommend and quote his reviews most. On the internet his site is the standard for independant record reviewing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.120.41 (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep the Prindle on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.140.56 (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP. Prindle is cited in many books, and this alone makes him worthy of an article. He is also the most important, and possibly the first, independent reviewer online. Prindle's site offers comprehensive reviews, covering everything available on whomever he is reviewing. He has also interviewed dozens of notable hardcore and alternative artists, and these interviews should be considered. It is good to have information on him and his website on Wikipedia, even if he is not well-known amongst most people. I have yet to find a more objective or better source of music information on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.88.41.82 (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Mark Prindle isn't just some guy being funny, he knows music even better than any rolling stone, spin or whatever magazine is on the street. Give him a reading, he knows, and rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.161.154.187 (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 05:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP. The demand for third-party sources seems rather antithetical to what Prindle's site is all about; he has created his own self-contained online universe over the past 10+ years, and the sheer number of hits -- and on-site (not to mention ilx-style bulletin board) discussion -- he continues to receive is testament to how loyal those who stumble upon it become and remain. Reading through his interviews with A-list punks and post-punks, it's amazing to see how many are intimately familiar with his site going into the interview. Not only do a number of these people WANT to be interviewed by Prindle because of their awareness of his intimate knowledge of every nook and cranny of their output, there are even those (like Jello Biafra) who REFUSE to be interviewed due to their familiarity with Prindle's work. I cannot think of another personal site that has such a reputation (and almost entirely a lofty one) within the listener, critic, and musician communities... it's quite an achievement, and -- this is the key in this debate -- Prindle has done it WORKING ENTIRELY ON HIS OWN. He has never been making money off of this venture, but he's kept at it for years and a far-reaching, international fanbase has found -- and bookmarked -- HIM over the last decade. As someone above said, Prindle's site is in many ways a Wikipedia of music criticism, and as such it would be a rather cruel (and absurd) irony if the most popular interactive online encyclopedia were to give the boot to the most popular interactive online music criticism site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.217.80 (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Lack of third party sources, nothing that seems to seperate him from every other review. The tons of IP's in this AFD make me wonder what messageboard was spammed with requests to support keeping it. TJ Spyke 07:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

KEEP. Third party references have been added to the entry, so what's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.233.250.6 (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Penelope (SNL)

Penelope (SNL) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - article obviously fails WP:WAF, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:N as there are no independent reliable sources that attest to the notability of this utterly forgettable and insignifiacnt character. The notability of SNL doesn't mean that every piddling little character who shows up in a couple of sketches should have its own article. Prod removed by an anon IP without comment which, as far as I'm concerned if some anonymius IP so-called "editor" wanders through removing prods without bothering to justify the removal it ought to be ignored but here we are wasting five days instead. Otto4711 (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • A couple of editors have been on something of an SNL kick of late, putting up articles on all sorts of characters and individual episodes. I've been working my way through the category trying to winnow out the non-notable articles as I find them. I think this is the only one that I've prodded that's had to come to AFD, and of course the reason the prod was removed was simply stellar. Otto4711 (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete While I love Kristen Wiig and this character in particular, it is ultimately NN. —  MusicMaker5376 23:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Characters like this, especially one-riff characters, apparently drawn from the actor's standup or improv repertory, can comfortably be handled summarily within the actor's individual entry. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all. If some editors wants some content to be merged, please contact me on my talk page.--JForget 00:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tengshu

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

article is about a non-notable fictional character. Prod was removed. Mh29255 (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages from the same novel because they don't meet the requirements of WP:FICTION:

Gylfie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Coryn/Nyroc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Otulissa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Doc Finebeak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nyra (Guardians of Ga'Hoole) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)--Fabrictramp (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all, overly detailed plot summaries written in-universe; they don't establish any real world notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all, perahps worth a mention or breif description on the novel's page but an individual article for each is too much - Dumelow (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Perhaps merging relevant info with the novel's article. Rsazevedo msg 23:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless coverage from real world sources are found Corpx (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into a combination article. given that the series is apparently a New York Times bestselling book series, its important enough. I agree individual articles are excessive at this point. DGG (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Enigmaman (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge i agree with DGG. Merging would be best. -munkee_madness talk 19:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Do not Delete Possibly merging would be better. The series is a New York Times Bestseller and its characters are important to the plot. All characters in the articles stated above are also relivent.-Myrrthe
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Tengshu and Doc finebeak are not vey productive. i think they should be deleted.70.217.148.84 (talk) 13:20, 10 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. Please note. I am putting 100% of the text (minus the AfD tag) into the article Mega City (The Matrix), and as such, will need cleanup once there. Club Hel (The Matrix) will be a redirect to the subsection Mega City (The Matrix)#Club Hel. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Club Hel (The Matrix)

Club Hel (The Matrix) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is just a repetition of parts of the Matrix movies plots, which is already covered in those articles. The rest is unsourced speculation about the potential symbolism, and any such information that can be found, is more appropriately placed in the Matrix film articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Mega City (The Matrix); but only merge in the parts that are important (not the plot summary). Ank329 (talk) 20:30, 13 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abena

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

No claim to notability, with most of the article being a list of the company's products. Speedy was rejected. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak keep and stubify. Looks notable enough to keep, but the entire Products section needs to go; it's WP:COATRACKed onto the article. Would be good to have another source or two in the intro, but I'll bet that some of the ones already on the article are good for the intro and possibly History section as well. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Not sure if the company's relevance is great enough for its own Wikipedia article... Rsazevedo msg 23:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Needs more than 3 self-references & one distributer catalog reference to prove WP:notability for an encyclopedia entry. Find the refs, save the article!--Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - no notability established for the company or its products Corpx (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The company's website mentions that "The group employs approximately 1200 employees and has an annual turnover in access of 300 million EUR."[32]
I agree with lifebaka
« D. Trebbien (talk) 19:30 2008 February 3 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately that is a primary source so does not help with establishing notability. Which notability criteria do you feel it may meet? Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not see a list of criteria for what makes businesses notable, but I do not think it is necessary here.
Please see WP:CORP Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It is my opinion that this company is notable because of the sales volume (the exact number can be contested, but look at the photo of the company's headquarters. A company with small profits can't afford a place like that) and their relatively unique line of products. « D. Trebbien (talk) 03:11 2008 February 4 (UTC)
This seems to be original research on your part (e.g. guessing at profits based upon a photo) and there is still the issue that the source you mentioned is a primary source (the company's website). What is needed to support notability is a secondary source. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't cite the photo in the article. « D. Trebbien (talk) 06:14 2008 February 6 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. The article content fails WP:SPAM. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment We need some objective evidence of market share. there is no way we can guess whether a firm that size is notable in the industry.DGG (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment After 5 minutes of googling I find lots of sources but none as yet that are reliable secondary sources with significant coverage. The article isn't written with any clue as to how one could prove notability. I'm guessing that the subject may well be notable and those sources out there but I can't say "keep" on a guess. There's not a whole lot to the article so it's not great loss to delete it, or inconvenience to the writer of a new article who does prove notability.Wikidemo (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep 350,000 google hits, many of which are for this company ("abena diaper" brought 10,500+ hits). From teh website it was apparent to me that this company is a big player in Denmark, if not Europe. Stub? Yes. Delete? No.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:40, 11 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Axe of the Dwarvish Lords

Axe of the Dwarvish Lords (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable roleplaying game weapon. Transwiki to the DND Wikia. Jfire (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and transwiki. No independent sources so fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    There's one RPGnet review now, added with significant rewriting - and the review's definitely not a love-fest. Don't know how much that counts as independent, but it seems like a fair review to me. 207.229.140.148 (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    Comment The review is definitely independent and by a notable game designer who was doing mostof his work at the time for a rival gaming company. Not sure if his status was free-lance at the time. --Smcmillan (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, or Redirect to either List of Dungeons & Dragons modules or List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons. "Axe of the Dwarvish Lords" is, like the Rod of Seven Parts, both the name of an artifact and the name of a module centered around the item. The article needs to be edited to reflect that fact. BOZ (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    Changing my vote to straight-up Keep, thanks to all the changes that have been made in the past few days. BOZ (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    Comment Your theatrical change of vote fools no one: you created this article in the first place, and your vote was always going to be a keep. None of the sources that have been added are reliable, and notability is still unproven. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    Comment Touchy? You'll notice I haven't added anything to the article recently. Honestly, when this AFD started I figured it would be a goner and no one would care enough to do anything for it which is the main reason I said anything about redirecting, but obviously I was proven wrong - a great deal of effort has gone into this article in an attempt to save it, and you'll see me thanking people all over the place in this discussion because of it. I applaud their efforts, even if you're worried that this may be one more AFD that you'll lose. (And if you're not worried, then why comment at all?) If people honestly believe that my vote was "always going to be a keep", then the closing admin will see through anything I have to say and discount my opinion, and if not then I will be afforded the same respect that any other editor deserves. Maybe one day, I'm hoping and praying, you will learn that just because Gavin says it is so, does not mean it is so. My experiences with you over the last few months have not borne that out yet, but only time will tell. BOZ (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    Comment I have awarded you the Barnstar of Recovery for your excellent theatrical performance. If you give up spamming articles with no content, context, analysis or evidence of notability, such as this one, I am sure you will have promising future on the stage.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    Wow, talk about theatrics. I'm really not even taking this as seriously as you are. But thanks for the award anyway, it's nice and shiny and looks good on my talk page. :) BOZ (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons, does not seem to be notable as it's own article and is well represented in the list. Perhaps merge some fo the main information to the list - Dumelow (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment/Suggestion Someone needs to figure out if this should be the artifact, the module or both. Frankly I'd go with a disambiguation page, and point to the list of artifact and the list of modules (at least until someone writes an article on the module which likely meets WP:N.). Hobit (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    It should be an article about both - the article came first (1979?), and the module came as a result of the artifact's long-standing history within the game (1999?). BOZ (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Seconding Hobit's suggestion: merge to two different pages and turn this into disambiguation. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    How are you going to address the notability concerns? Jfire (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    By no longer having a separate article dedicated to the subject. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    One thing it should definitely not be is split - there's just not anywhere near enough notability to sustain them as separate items. BOZ (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think it's notable enough to warrant a disambig page, either. I think we should simply redirect to one or the other, and then make sure that the redirect target is well wikilinked to the other instance. BreathingMeat (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    I'll disagree. As there is both an item and a module, and we are redirecting to lists, I think we're fine with a disambiguation page. If we are willing to do a redirect, we should be willing to do a disamb. independent of notability. Hobit (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules or List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons, not relevant enough to have its own article. Rsazevedo msg 23:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules, nothing here worth merging (I recommend that merge target over List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons as at least a D&D module is an actual real-world publication, not a fictional item of dubious encyclopedic notability). --Stormie (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons rather than modules because artifact came first and appears outside the module. I'm not too fussed though, as we cannot guess which "Axe" readers will be searching for. BreathingMeat (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per BOZ.--Robbstrd (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per BOZ. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Anyone willing to fix this up? The module has no problems meeting notability requirements IMO, but the artifact I'm less sure of. BOZ, if you want to keep them together, the article needs some work... Hobit (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    I really don't know what to do for it honestly. I'll try to take a look at it and see what, if anything, I can do. BOZ (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep One of the oldest mentioned artifacts in the original D&D system (goes back to the Eldridge Wizardry supplement, per Jon Pickens and the Encyclopedia Magica). I'll try to define this a bit. BusterD (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Does the intro fix help? BusterD (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    Comment It does look a whole lot better at least, thanks. :) As far as how much that will matter... we'll see, I guess. BOZ (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    Artifacts are tough to destroy/delete anyway. Gotta throw it into the volcano in which it was made, or break it with a footstep of the humble ant (per DMG). I was wondering how anybody was ever going to close this AfD (Axe for Deletion) discussion without so much as a Mordenkainen's Disjunction. (Does English Wikipedia even have an admin who can cast 9th level wizard spells? Maybe German Wikipedia...) BusterD (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    I've removed the tags for issues which have been addressed. Since notability was listed in nom for deletion, I'll not remove that until this discussion is closed, one way or the other. BusterD (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks - you and others have done some awesome work! It's almost completely unrecognizable from its previous form. BOZ (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    For the record, I'd like to point out I correctly predicted the potent magic of the Axe would prevent a hasty closing of this AfD. BusterD (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    True. :) But it's not safe yet... BOZ (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There is a sufficient amount of material that can be included in the article as it is well-known in D&D circles since practically its beginning. The One Ring from The Lord of the Rings has its own page along similar reasoning. « D. Trebbien (talk) 22:26 2008 February 3 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect, keeping info for GPDL reasons. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I was going to say Merge but there seems to be enough information to support a full article, and there is at least one reliable secondary source. --Smcmillan (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of this fictional artifact outside of Dungeons & Dragons. Six of the seven sources cited originate from the game publishers (TSR and Wizards of the Coast) except one self-published review, which was written by a S. John Ross who has worked for the publishers. The majority of the article is plot summary with a heavy in-universe perspective that fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF, which means that this article falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that citation of S. John Ross for review of the adventure module Axe of the Dwarvish Lords cannot be classed as a reliable secondary source, since it deals with the source material (an adventure module or book of the same name). Assertions that this souce is evidence of notability is misleading, since the reference to the fictional axe itself is trivial in nature. As this fictional artifact only receives a passing mention in the review, the artifact still fails WP:FICT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment So by your reasoning the only reliable secondary sources in the featured article Cortana are those that specifically focus on the character of Cortana, not the Halo games? And since those sources are on websites that you would probably (given previous arguments of yours) classify as "fansites," they aren't reliable either. I guess you should go slap a notability tag on Cortana then. Why don't you go do that?--Smcmillan (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect. Non-notable; mention in List of D&D Axes or a list of your choice. Second choice; throw it into The Cracks of Doom. --Jack Merridew 14:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is a notable fictitious artifact with a long history of publication, and third-party sources exist. Merging it into List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons, while a sensible option at first glance, would be counterproductive on account of the length of the article and the amount of information it contains. Typically, subsections this long are split off from articles, rather than merged into them. This is long enough to warrant a page, and well written up, with the proper out-of-universe perspective. Freederick (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Adequate notability Colonel Warden (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There is one reliable enough secondary source and enough information for a seperate article. Davewild (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Third-party sources exist. - Poisonink (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete *facepalms*
    B-b-but the Axe of the Dwarvish Lords is notable! It is the most powerchful weaponth inth all of the landth of Golandia! It was craftedth by the mighty dwarventh warrior-god, Thalazarth, in the fairy caves of Antioch! It was used by the legendary hero, Zandara, in the destruction of the mighty red pearl dragon!
    *rolls 1d20 and casts "Delete stupid article."* ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    In order to save my colleague editor from permanent embarrassment, I will on his request delete the above "argument" DGG (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    But, it was the best argument yet. ;) BOZ (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    It is the best delete argument here; gets right to the point. --Jack Merridew 08:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    To paraphrase Mark Antony, "...he has me exact." BusterD (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Warning Any non-dwarf who holds the axe loses some of their vitality — I just hope that editing this article doesn't count as holding this axe; might be best to delete this article to avoid any further risk to non-dwarf wikipedians. --Jack Merridew 12:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons - no independant sources to establish notability beyond D&D. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article can be improved, but it has sufficient references to remain a distinct article. And as an aside, the trolling of BOZ's user talk page with a sarcastic barnstar w/ regards to this article was inappropriate.Shemeska (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm still keeping it as a badge of honor though - regardless of the nonsensical circumstances in which it came about, it is my first.  ;) BOZ (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - If you are not going to take the process here seriously then don’t participate. The Axe my not be the best article here, it may even be worthy of deletion, but the condescending attitudes of some editors here point are more to WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything else they are trying say. Web Warlock (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - the article has been improved over the course of the last few days and certainly more references could be found. Besides WP:WAF has never been a reason to delete an article. I would also accept a redirect but which article would be the best Modules or Artifacts? Web Warlock (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Webwarlock. The only deletion reason given was "non-notable", and the article asserts notability and includes references. Rray (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Colonel Warden. Iquander (talk) 06:53, 14 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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 by Jmlk17. --Coredesat 08:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jo Ammar

Jo Ammar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No news coverage, oodles of wiki hits and mirrors but very little evidence in any language that this musician exists, let alone meets WP:BAND Travellingcari (talk) 04:32, 7 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 Unanimous consensus to keep.--JForget 00:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ole Brunell

Ole Brunell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This person does not seem to have any significant media coverage. Divamia (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


It's just one article, and not all authors are notable. Divamia (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Baltimore's Jewish Family Magazine mentions him http://www.wherewhatwhen.com/read_articles.asp?id=36--Java7837 (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Where? Are there any details? Divamia (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
*Delete for lack of news coverage from RS unless any of the Finnish sources are reliable. I can't read the language. Travellingcari (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
ETA : I found one book, which was also cited by another. Again it's a language issue to judge the publisher, etc. Travellingcari (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Change to keep based on sources found. Travellingcari (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Source above found at Arutz Sheva here [33]. There is a second source at [34] by the Jewish Press. The article specifically deals with the subject. These two articles, I believe, meet the bare necessity of two reliable sources on the subject. Culturalrevival (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. There might be more reliable sources if his current name was known. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I did a google search for Shlomo Brunell it came up with many results Shlomo is the name he took upon converting see http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=Shlomo+Brunell&btnG=Google+Search and http://www.google.com/search?q=Shlomo+Brunell&hl=en&safe=off&start=10&sa=N --Java7837 (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Two sources listed above. Ism schism (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep based on sources found. --MPerel 07:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep since he meets all the basic requirements as proven by above editors. Also, User Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) had once noted [35] in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Dov Keller that: "...Religious sources and media of notable religious organizations are perfectly acceptable reliable sources to establish notability of religious subjects and figures. Notability in the field, not notability in general media, is the standard, and that is met here. There is no problem I can see that can justify a delete vote..." and the same applies here. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename to Shlomo Brunell. given the sources found so far. I've added the three that appear to be the most reliable of the group to the article (suggest editors add sources to the article as they find them). It looks like he's more notable in English as Shlomo Brunell rather than Ole Brunell. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 15:20, 10 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

[edit] 2008 Southern Miss Golden Eagles football team

2008 Southern Miss Golden Eagles football team (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. As I said in my prod nom, the team itself is not particularly notable, the article is speculation, no other seasons have pages for themselves (and there is not enough information about them on Southern Miss Golden Eagles to warrant making them), and the page contains nothing indicating notability for the upcoming season meriting an article. I would suggest a merge, but there's not really any new information in this article to merge. Gromlakh (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - Similair articles exist for less "notable" teams, the article is in no way speculative, the fact that "no other seasons have pages for themselves" does not seem to merit deletion on its own and the article will be updated with new information for the upcoming season, including the amazing signing class USM put together for 2008. Myspace69 —Preceding comment was added at 04:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; just because another team's season page hasn't been deleted yet doesn't mean it's notable. It also doesn't mean this is notable, nor does it mean that the 2008 football season is important enough to be split off from the main article (which is already pretty short). Gromlakh (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, crystalball, cannot be notable yet. Blast Ulna (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - How can this or any page of a similair nature be considered "notable", as the actual season is still several months away? Surely "notable" events will occur during the season. So should this page be deleted only to be ressurected again at the conclusion of the season? And what about USM's signing class, is that not "notable?" Myspace69 —Preceding comment was added at 04:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Note:This is a second vote from this user. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:ORG and WP:N and can not be justified based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. How could every team for every sport at every school be notable? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - How about this one for you: WP:BIAS? How did you determine that the article "Fails WP:ORG and WP:N?" I don't understand that to be the case. Myspace69 —Preceding comment was added at 04:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - Since you requested that I respond to you (even though I didn't post the last few delete notes, and I already responded to your first "Keep" vote), I'll give it another shot.
    • First, you do not need to write Keep every time you comment. AfD is not a majority vote, and even if it was the closing admin will only count one keep vote per user. Writing keep 3 times does not make it more likely that the article will be kept.
    • Second, you're basically making the crystalballing argument for me with your second "Keep" vote. You're assuming that something notable will happen during the season. You might be right, but that's not the point. We don't assume ANYTHING here. Something gets notable first, then it comes into Wikipedia; not the other way around.
    • Finally as to the recruiting class, I'll assume for the sake of argument that it's notable. The text you created would have to be massively edited for NPOV and peacocking if it were to be kept, and I'm also not sure that everything you said is backed up by that one reference, but there's at least something reporting on it. That doesn't mean that this one season of football merits its own page apart from the main page on the college/its sports. If you distill the page down and eliminate the extraneous stuff, you've basically got two points that aren't mentioned on the main sports page for the school: 1.) they got a decent recruiting class; and 2.) the same guy will be coaching them. None of that needs a separate page, especially given how small the main page already is. Articles only get split off because either the main page is really long or the material being split is so voluminous and/or notable that going heavily in depth about it on a different page would be giving it undue weight in the context of that article. Neither applies, as the main sports page is rather short and there's no information on this page that couldn't be concisely presented on the main sports page (just like every other season).
    • If they end up winning a national title this year or something, that might change and the page might need to be recreated. But we don't keep articles around just because there's a possibility that six/eight/ten months from now something really notable might or might not happen. Gromlakh (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Is the coaching change they made, firing the long-tenured Jeff Bower and hiring up-and-coming coordinator Larry Fedora not notable? Either Fedora will lead the team to another winning season (USM currently has the 5th longest streak in the nation with 14 consecutive)/Bowl bid (USM has been Bowling 10 of the last 11 years, pretty good for a non-BCS Conf. team) in his first year, or he won't, which would be notable based on those streaks being broken. If you want more sources supporting my 'assertion' that USM's (concensus top-50/best in the CUSA) recruiting class is, in fact, notable, I can provide plenty, but I'm hesitant to put any further work into an article that the WikiPopo are determined to banish. If the subject of the article is not up to your personal standards of notoriety, because it seems to me to meet Wikipedia's, then go ahead and delete it so I put my time into something that does meet your criteria.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ѕandahl 05:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Gordon Spencer

Robert Gordon Spencer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Film extra. No meaningful roles. Yes, he has an imdb page here but his roles are "Restaurant Patron in Red Shirt", "A Immigrant with blanket", "Customer Walking", etc (I'm not making this up). Pichpich (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, present roles are not notable. The ones scheduled for this year might well be although the films do not yet appear to be notable, but it can always be recreated if the roles turn out to be significant enough - Dumelow (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete does not represent notability, and seems to be only a simple film extra, for only 3 movies. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eve of the Dead

Eve of the Dead (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete Non notable publication per WP:BK. Veritas (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy  Talk  03:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. I actually had to do some external research in order to decide how to vote on this one. The book's publisher, Moorhen Press, apparently has a grand total of one publication: this book. Doczilla (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:BK. Doctorfluffy (talk) 02:39, 11 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.

Rel

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

The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brian A. Scott

Brian A. Scott (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Completely unreferenced bio of minor UFO crank, with not a hint as to why he's supposed to be notable. Appears to be some sort of WP:COATRACK, in that the article creator's very first edit summary says I am part of a team that watches charlatans like this guy. Calton | Talk 03:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

My B.A.S. article was wholly and accurately referenced before someone showed up and removed all of my references. ???

With the B.A.S. references that I will add in soon, I must dissent and formally appeal the BIO and COATRACK counterclaims. First, in terms of notable biography while quoting WP best practices -- consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a person should be written : others and I have done extensive, periodic research on and spent small amounts of time with the individual in question being biographed here. These facts make me 1) a competent biographer and 2) wholly qualified to add sources of information about this person.

Now for my second point addressing the curiously esoteric coatrack counterclaim -- discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats" : are you suggesting I am creating a straw man argument or using ad hominem attacks in my biography? Again I repeat myself to the point of near exhaustion: *Everything I have written about this individual is factually correct!* Some who are more military minded than myself would consider this person to be a predator.

Winlundn (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as a non-notable person. The sources provided are very plainly unreliable and privately maintained websites. And considering that this information could be considered defamatory if untrue, it meets the very definition of a BLP violation. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Brian A. Scott is not a non-notable person. This article is being written largely for historical purposes because, back in the 1970s/1980s this guy was No. 2 or No. 3 right behind Whitley Strieber on the list of most resourceful UFO pranksters.

I feel like I'm being singled out here and I don't know why. If you really believe I am libeling this person then come out and say that I am libeling him.

Here we go again -- I must dissent against the claim Brian A. Scott is a non-notable person:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) | Verifiability

.. use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed..

Both my presentation and P.O.V. are neutral. Nowhere do I write "I think" or "this author believes"

I have verification AND I can validate my statements. Nowhere do I write "may have". If there is ANY question about this specific matter then call me out with a point of order or leave it alone.

High quality refs: one of the references I cite is directly from the individual in question. He wrote it, he believes it and according to multiple sources not just mine he has used individuals in official capacity to push his beliefs on the public.

-winlundn 19:08 12 February 2008

  • Comment. I mean exactly what I said. There are no veiled accusations. If you don't understand it, read the three links I dropped. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I did. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. My sources are appropriate to the claims made. How can you invalidate what I've written if it is indeed based on fact?

With regard to Wikipedia:RS: This page documents a content guideline on the English Wikipedia. While it is not policy, editors are strongly advised to follow it. As the occasional exception may arise, it should be approached with common sense.

Let's take the common sense approach, then. Doesn't common sense tell you I won't come in randomly and use shady references to write a biography?

Again, B.A.S. is not a non-notable person. He has some fame. Aside from that if you continue to maintain I am not following protocol then that is bordering on an entirely arbitrary and capricious pattern of behavior directed against a wikipedia user.

-winlundn 19:22 12 February 2008

  • Comment. My common sense tells me you don't actually understand what a reliable source is. A reliable source is a source of "material [that] has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." This includes articles from newspapers and magazines of good reputation that exercise editorial review. This does not include privately maintained websites with no evidence of proper review, or a at least notable opinion of reliability from obviously reliable sources. This being the case, this individual has not been shown to satisfy the notability guideline, as the only fundamental criterion for this guideline is the existence of multiple, reliable, independent sources concerning him. All other criteria for notability exist only to establish those cases in which we can be certain such sources exist even if they are not presented, and you haven't shown this to be certain. Further, by the same argument, this inherently violates the BLP policy, which requires that any possibly defamatory material come from a reliable source. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless somebody can provide some reliable sources (not blogs, POV websites and reviews of a self-published book). --Orange Mike | Talk 02:15, 14 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 DB2. A dab page is a possibility, but it seems to me that the late Burmese actor (his name is also transcribed, and perhaps more commonly, Dway) would be the obvious thing under this name. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dwe

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

Delete unsourced one-liner about some IBM software without any indication why that particular specific software is notable, has been tagged for a long time without any fixing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete For several reasons: It has almost no context. It does not indicate anything at all of notability. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to DB2, which already has (slightly) more information about Dwe than this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • redirect for now, could be a acronym disambig. It can also stand for Department of Water and Energy (NSW. Aust), and The Doppler Wind Experiment on Cassini–Huygens.[36] --Salix alba (talk) 12:31, 9 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Shisha Cafe'

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/'Shisha Cafe'
'Shisha Cafe' (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not-notable  UzEE  02:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - un-notable. Google search turns up to almost nothing to what is written in the article. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Fails notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:34, 8 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 a lack of quorum. Article cannot be deleted until more opinions have been registered. Please relist. --  Denelson83  04:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Agency 2.0

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

This is a neologism that was coined some two weeks ago. I initially tagged this one for speedy, but I had second thoughts. Still, Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 02:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete seems non-notable since it's upcoming. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:38, 7 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 No delete votes--JForget 00:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atma Singh

Atma Singh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Vanity article, almost entirely written by subject. Only link also added by subject. RolandR (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • If he were truly notable, then an article about him would have been started and edited by someone other than himself. Whether or not there is an article about Singh, the entire content of the current article should go. RolandR (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Nope. The fact that he started the article is independent of whether he is truly notable. In this case, he is truly notable, and feel free to cut in down drastically.. But he's notable, and there is content there that is salvageable. Relata refero (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite if need be to maintain neutrality. Pichpich (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 02:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The accomplishments and references add up to notability. Note that the article has been cut back to a stub; earlier versions give a better idea of his achievements. --Eastmain (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Sources identified establish his notability. Has been stubbed so a NPOV/non COI version can be written. Davewild (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is notable, good amount of sources, but needs to be totally rewritten. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Raddick Explorations

Raddick Explorations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional corporation in a MMORPG. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


The page is under construction and when complete will show that this group altered an MMORPG in several notable ways, including a political change within the game Relevant scource material is being sourced and checked for any legality issues coming from said material with reference to copyright. Telkanes (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh. Until that happens, I vote Delete. Very heavy on in-universe references, not much more than a list of what appear to be screen names. I could just as easily post a list of modifications I've made to numerous cars in Forza Motorsport, but that wouldn't be encyclopedic either. Duncan1800 (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 10:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Duncan1800. Andre (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Currently has no out-of-universe context, and is unlikely to have any notability. Perhaps the contributors should consider a game-specific wiki such as eve-wiki. Marasmusine (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Global Issues Initiative

Global Issues Initiative (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL applies, this initiative is a class project that has yet to produce a podcast (their goal). It's a noble idea, but doesn't warrant an article. PKT (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. I understand that we are projecting into the future with a podcast that has no episodes. The plan is to get the episodes up on the internet within a month at the latest. This is a class project and so we have deadlines that will be met. I will attempt to resubmit once the project is officially completed to see if it should be considered for wikipedia. Thank you.--Mlukach (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Mlukach 08:56, 30 January 2008 PST

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy  Talk  01:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if this thing does get up and running, a high-school class's podcast fails WP:WEB unless and until it (improbably) gets coverage in reliable sources. Deor (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A FUTURE podcast? Multiple failures of policy, not even close. --Calton | Talk 03:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, a future high school class project is not notable, until it receives secondary source coverage (per above) - Dumelow (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete First, this is future, which means the article is non-notable. Second, it seems to fail WP:CRYSTAL. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:34, 7 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 Snowball closure. --Angelo (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gerry O'Brien

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Gerry O'Brien
Gerry O'Brien (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

seems insignificant, and unverifiable. [37] nothing but mirrors. Docg 01:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Played in the FA Cup therefore meets WP:BIO and both current and proposed WP:FOOTY notability criteria. But it still needs referencing. Peanut4 (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep still. I've found his stats at [38] which show his league career and notability per WP:BIO and WP:FOOTY. Peanut4 (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Is that a reliable source?
    • But did he play in an FA cup? Or was he only even on the subs bench? And can you find a reliable source to verify any of it?--Docg 02:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as aboves above. (if that makes sense :)) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Does the fact his stats might be worth recording somewhere, mean we should have a biography on this living person. Is there any biographical material that can be reliably sourced to merit this?--Docg 02:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Strongest possible keep - he played 199 league games in his career. I've now expanded the article and added as many references as I can find. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Obviously passes WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As above clearly passes WP:BIO, great improvements to the article have taken place. Davewild (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Impressive to see such an improvement in the article since nomination, so AfD does have positive outcomes rather than just deleting junk, hooray. King of the NorthEast 08:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - well above the bar of notability for nearly 200 fully professional league appearances. - fchd (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per everyone else. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per Art and all his friends :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Good research. --Dweller (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • String keep - clearly notable. GiantSnowman (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete per WP:N - a slight numerical majority of keep votes which however (apart from Dhartung's) did not address the key issues raised by the nom and by delete voters. I looked at a few AfDs for other revues and similar types of shows for guidance. Orderinchaos 13:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whirled News Tonight

Whirled News Tonight (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about improv show that fails to assert notability per WP:N Mh29255 (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. No reliable, secondary sources to show notability. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Sources from the Chicago Daily Herald have been added, but internet links aren't provided and it doesn't have a wiki article, so I'm not sure if it's good enough to pass WP:N. If someone could provide online sources or a confirmation of the Herald sources, that'd invalidate my and the nom's concerns. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an established, successful Chicago improv group with multiple press mentions.Wageless (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. More than 2,000 Google hits. The article could use some revamping, though. Rsazevedo msg 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 01:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Just want to say--re Lifebaka's second comment above--I got the Daily Herald articles off of LexisNexis, which is unfortunately for subscribers only. An article on the Daily Herald is on WP at Daily Herald (Arlington Heights)--it was started in 1871. It's a credible source. There are also some "Whirled News" hits in the chicago Tribune archive. Hope this helps. Regards--Wageless (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - "Google hits" =/= "notablity", nor are unspecified references to a newspaper archive -- which, for we can tell, are simply archived entertainment listings. Actual MULTIPLE reliable sources -- not just a single, inaccessible suburban newspaper article -- are required, offering actual evidence of real-world impact and notice. --Calton | Talk 03:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep. Borderline WP:LOCAL, but the NBC deal gives them some legitimacy. There was a Chicago SUn-Times article[39] and a review of a live show in Charleston, SC[40], the latter free to access for some editors. --Dhartung | Talk 09:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and Improve. There also seems to be a general consensus to rename the article, or at least explicitly state in the article that this "disorder" has been historically called other things. The sources linked here (Washington Post and Blackwell) seem to back up a notability claim. Tagging article for post-AfD cleanup. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias disorder

Bias disorder (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article itself notes that the disorder has not yet gained acceptance, neither Google News nor Scholar (the hits are talking about sample bias) are familiar with it. None of the ghits appear reliable -- forums or different context and the sources contained in the article are one that questions whether it could be a disorder, a dead link and one that doesn't mention it at all (full text is available at the link. I see no evidence that this is notable or verifiable Travellingcari (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Psychologists and psychiatrists have been discussing bias disorder seriously for many years now, so I wouldn't dismiss it too quickly as unnotable or unverifiable. I've read articles about it in reputable journals, and it was covered in one of my university courses. It's probably not found in Google Scholar because most of the sources are offline, and because it goes by various names. While one of the sources listed doesn't seem to be about the disorder, another is from the Washington Post, which is certainly reliable. I found an additional source here. Many times, offline sources outnumber online sources but are less convenient to find and post. That seems to be the case here. Valerius (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment where do you see coverage from the Washington Post? I haven't come across that anywhere. I'm not disagreeing because I can't prove it, obviously, but I find it difficult to believe these sources would be all offline since it's a fairly recent phenomenon and Google Scholar has indexed the articles and abstracts in a large number of scholarly journals. The article as it stands is solely Original Research with no sourcing whatsoever. Travellingcari (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Too speculative per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEO. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep but needs rewrite/rename. The more commonly accepted term for this proposed diagnosis is pathological bias -- although that phrase can mean things like a bias toward pathology in research. There are already several books that have raised the issue of whether this should be in DSM-V.[41]. [42] professional opinion piece, another. There's an article here, but it would need careful sourcing. --Dhartung | Talk 09:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The links I provided discuss it in greater depth than just as a proposed DSM-V classification. In fact I was wondering whether an article title cadged from one that is already out there, Racism and mental illness, would be another way to pursue it. You don't think the question of whether bigotry is a type of mental illness is a topic in itself? Well, WP:N says otherwise. In any case, your argument above is exactly the heart of the controversy -- that is, whether it is just an "extreme form of bigotry". --Dhartung | Talk 12:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • delete I sincerely doubt this will get in the DSM. The possible sense in which it could be taken is too politically controversial in itself. It would be like some eras of russian and other country's history, when people with political views not in line with the regime were labeled 'insane' and put in asylums. Perhaps merge a small amount to racism or bigotry or another such article, not saying this is the same as them, but this view could be discussed there.Merkinsmum 13:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • week keep it seems to just about meet notability with Washington Post article, an another radio interviewon Weekend America. The article does need to make clear that it is in the theory stage and several other terms have been used "pathological bigotry", "pathological hatred," "racial paranoia," "extreme racial bias," and "pathological bias." --Salix alba (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW--JForget 00:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reason - C++ Library

Reason - C++ Library (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Put simply, the problems with this article are too numerous to just tag it for cleanup and leave it. Principally, it has WP:ADVERT and WP:COI issues. In addition, WP:NOT a repository for product documentation. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - I noted on the talk page that the entire article was copied from the project's homepage. Dandaman32 (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete When I investigated the first appearance of this article, eventually tagging it for copyright issues, I was struck by the apparent lack of much independent coverage out there, which suggests it's very premature to say this topic has established notability. And it really does read like promotional material. --Sturm 01:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Should be tagged as a speedy, copyvio. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The entire text is copied becuase i wrote it. Is there a problem with this ?

I had no idea Wikipedia was so full of zealots. Seriously, how is the article ive just written any different to any of the other articles about Application framework's. Have you actually tried to verify the source ? Take a look at my email user name and email addres, and then have a look at [43] and compare them.

Try sending me an email ?

It would reallly assist me in improving the quality if you actually listed all of the problems which are "too numerous" so that i could actually fix it. Surely you should be encouraging contribution not squashing it in a rage of furious keystrokes.

I doubt wikipedia's reputation would be seriously harmed if you actually let the dust settle on a new article, for say more than 60 seconds before you flag it for deletion !

Gees, you guys are so nuts about this i cant even paste a comment here. Its taken me three tries just to get a word in. Take a chill pill... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emerson clarke (talk • contribs) 01:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - lack of reliable sources, no indication of notability. Even if the subject is notable, the article would have to be completely rewritten to be suitable for Wikipedia. --Snigbrook (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_library for an example of the same kind of content. If the article needs to be re-written then so be it, but thats no means for deletion. The whole point of wikipedia is to edit things is it not, you just have to give it a chance first though... im really not impressed with the attitudes being demonstrated here. --Emerson clarke (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • That article does need to be improved, but it does have at least one third-party reference. It has many more Google results: over 8000 for Boost compared to 8 for Reason, and although that it no always an accurate indication I cannot find much information about Reason at all other than from its own site, which is not enough for notability (or verifiability). --Snigbrook (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


I am going to address each of the above points in turn, and then remove the deletion notice on the article since i think that most of whats been mentioned here is either not relevant or out of date.

KurtRaschke I have removed all references to licensing other than the statements that it is an open source framework. So if you still feel there are WP:ADVERT issues then i would appreciate an explanation.

As for the WP:COI issue, i dont understand this. I happen to be the author of the framework, but that doesnt automatically mean there is a conflict of interest. I also happen to be the only person who knows enough about the philosophy and design behind it to reliably author a wikipidia article about it.

The article is most definately not WP:NOT product documentation. There are a few examples, as have been provided in similar articles about other frameworks like [Boost library]. The library is some 250,000 lines of code - there is simply no way you can argue that what ive written consitiutes documentation. Its a few quick examples demonstrating common programming problems and solutions, as is required to explain what Reason - C++ Library is about.

Dandaman32

Copying the article from the homepage does not represent a problem per say. The copyright issues have been explained and dealt with. The content is only a starting point for editing anyway, and that in itself is no cause for deletion.

I really would appreciate more constructive examples of why you feel its not suitable if indeed you do.

Sturm

What exactly consitutes independent coverage. I would suggest that you are simply not very familiary with the subject matter in question. C++ as a language has been around for 30 years or more, and in that time very few useful, simple, or well designed Application framework's have ever been written for it.

Reason is only a year old, yet it is still one of only two or three C++ libraries in existance. The others being Boost and QT. But Boost isnt really an application framework, its a template framework.

Reason appears prominantly on Google if you search for C++ frameworks. This serves to demonstrate that the domain is very poorly populated, and that should also be enough to establish notability. It represents a significant body of work and a significant achievement.

If you really think it sounds promotional, and more so than other articles about software libraries, frameworks, and platforms then please give me some examples to back up your opinion.

Snigbrook

What more reliable source do you want other than the author of the work. Please explain what criteria you expect this to be judged if your going to make such statements.

I dispute your ability or credibility to establish notability. Reason is extremely notable, if only for the fact that it exists and that it is one of very few examples of work in that space. I wonder under what rational you think that its not notable, or if you even bothered to look at the subject matter in the 120 seconds before you voted for deletion.

Again, i have no problem with re-writing the article. Thats part of the reason wikipedia is a wiki. But you have to leave it up there for a while to allow that to happen.

Compwhiz II

You may percieve the article to be written like a WP:NOT#GUIDE but it certainly isnt one. No more or less than the many hundreds of other technical articles on wikipedia detailings algorithms and software development techniques. As stated above, the article is far from a manual or a source of documentation. There are a few sparse examples, thats it.

There are absolutely ZERO WP:COPYVIO copyright violations on that page. I am the author, as stated here and in the talk page many times and i have already sent the necessary permissions to wikipedia.

Please can you people stop going off half cocked before youve actually read/researched the material and subject space.



Anyway... im going to remove the deletion notice from the page now. Feel free to respond to my comments, and please be considerate in giving examples and explaining your thoughts constructively so that i actually have a chance to make changes.

As editors i think you all probably need to evaluate wether you are working for or against the process, i really am shocked at how quickly and savagly you all jumped on this within minutes of its creation.

The article most definately has a right to be here, given the well established prior art of similar articles about similar subject matter - so if your going to make an argument against Reason - C++ Library it needs to be considdered with this in mind.

Thanks. --Emerson clarke (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Delete. Even if this were notable (which I doubt), the article is unsalvageably promotional and POV-ridden. Actual encyclopedic coverage would need to start from scratch anyway. –Henning Makholm 02:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Henning Makholm

Umm, ok. How come all of the editors here seem to be unsalvageably against actually adding content to wikipedia. Surely deleting something is no where near as constructive as actually editing it. You are not actually making a point for deletion, merely editing.

I have no quarrel with the fact that it needs editing, i only just created it. Give me a break. But i find it hard to believe that every article on wikipedia which does not measure up editorially immediately gets deleted.

If thats the case, you may as well just go ahead and change this site to be called "delete if you dont create the perfect article the first time-apedia" dot org. I mean cmon !

I can edit in notepad as good as the next person, but i think this is just overkill. All you have provided is opinion, not actually a reason for deletion.

If you check the article you will see that i have been editing it heavily. But since i have other things to get done than camp on wikipedia trying to prevent deletion, im going to have to leave it for a few days and come back to it. I hope that common sense prevails.

In the meantime im going to go and work on my new idea for a global static HTML encyclopedia where no one gets to edit anything, rather its just got an FTP interface and users systematically upload and delete content. I think ill call it wikievolution.org.  :P

--Emerson clarke (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete How about we throw in the fact this article is a copy & paste from this site as well, and therefore a copyright violation? Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

For god sake, do you people actually read ? ... for the final time, there is no copyright infringement, i own the copyright and i have taken the necessary steps to attribute it to wikipedia.

I have also been extensively editing the content to make it less like documentation. It is certainly not advertising, im merely attemping to author something which describes the programming philosophy behind Reason and why it differs from other lbraries and frameworks. These are technical issues, perhaps too subtle for non programmers to understand.

Granted, it needs a lot of work... but as far as i can see most of the issues raised here related to the need to edit, not delete. Having read the deletions policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy im struggling to see what your point is other than that which has already been addressed (copyright, and advertising) as far as i can see.

Deletion is a pretty extreme measure, not a power trip. I am working on the editorial... but thats a different issue no ?

--Emerson clarke (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, no proof that the creator here has license to use the text that's a copyvio other than the assertion that he's the author, blatant CoI and unsalvageable PR. I think it could have been speedied on 2 of the three. Travellingcari (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment For the record, the article's creator has said he's emailed permissions-en@wikimedia.org regarding the copyright. I don't think that's the real issue here. The problem is that, as Emerson clarke admits, he is "only person who knows enough about the philosophy and design behind it to reliably author a wikipidia article about it"; which is strongly suggestive that reliable, secondary sources aren't out there, and that the topic is therefore non-notable. --Sturm 12:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Got it, I might have missed that in this oddly formatted AfD discussion. I agree on the other count Travellingcari (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, it seems to me that amongst editors there is some confusion as to the role and scope of proposed for deletion. Since copyright is not an issue, and notability is not in the deletion policy i think you have only raised issues worth of editorial improvement.

Further still, since notability explicitly states that it is not about "popularity" or "fame" the fact that you dont percieve there to be any reliable secondary sources out there is probably not as important as actually assesing what the article contains.

It does not contain any strong points of view, nor does it contain any statements which need to be verified by anyone else. It is simply a discussion of the desgin pinciples of a framework, written by one of the few people who understands then.

I am not presenting anything controversial, and i am not attempting to misguide or mislead any readers, so the notions of notability and "independence of subject" dont seem relevant, and are certainly not cause for deletion. --Emerson clarke (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

    • Please see Wikipedia:Deletion#Reasons_for_deletion: lack of notability is a reason for deletion. --Sturm 13:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I understand that you feel that lack of notability is at hand, but you do not, and have not explained why. Other than the fact that i authored the content, and am aslo the only authority on the content. That in itself does not establish lack of notability does it ? ..try actually reading the content and just forgetting about who authored it for a moment. Is it really that objectionable or biased ?--Emerson clarke (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I believe I have mentioned the relationship between notability and independent coverage already, and have pointed you towards the guidelines on notability. I've also mentioned more fundamental content policies over at the article talk page, including links to the relevant policy pages, in a note on basing articles around independent sources. Is there any more I need to add on this point? --Sturm 14:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) As you said : "and am aslo the only authority on the content." Ok, so are there ANY reliable sources to show this meets WP:N at all, any? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please can somone reading this remove this article from the proposed for deletions, as can be plainly seen from reading the points above most of the editors are still mistakenly assuming that there is some copyright issue when there isnt and the only legitimate concern is notability.

This process seems to be a straw man once something gets onto proposed for deletion. I suggest that it be left alone for a while and then see if it gets re-added to establish a little more objectivity, something which the editors here dont yet appear to be showing. --Emerson clarke (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete If the subject's creator admits that he is the only authority on the subject, I don't see how the article can be verifiable or the subject can be notable. Maxamegalon2000 15:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • What has this got to do with the author. Are you that prejudiced that you cannot abide by an article which is written by someone who has a connection with the material. This is not the only criteria for evaluation, you have made no mention that there is anything wrong with the actual content, only that i have been open and honest in stating that i am also the author of the framework. Surely if i can edit the article so that it is factual and impartial this should be enough. There are hundreds and thousdands of articles on wikipedia for which notability isnt even relevant. The article in question is one of them, all im doing is providing some background to something which not a lot of people know about. That doesnt mean it shouldnt be included, as i have stated before - wikipedia houses untold numbers of articles that are "obscure" and not "notable" to most people.--Emerson clarke (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The author is missing the point: you wrote the software, you use it, you think it's important. Who else uses it? Who else thinks it's important? Who has reviewed it or written articles about it? That's what we mean by "notability" and "reliable source". If it's new software and doesn't have users yet, you should come back and create an article after it has become notable.Bm gub (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I think the editors are missing the point. I think its important becuase its representative. If there are only three or four C++ frameworks in the world, and if there is something of unusual or particular value in the philosophy presented then it is important by those virtues alone. Reason is a unique C++ framework becuase it makes writing software in C++ actually easy. This isn't a matter of opinion, its a matter of fact, and if you give the article a chance to be editorially improved rather than deleted i think you will see this is the case. Notability has nothing to do with "fame" and "popularity" according to the wikipedia definition. So you are plain wrong in stating that its about "who else thinks its important". Not many people think that a metaphone is important either, but its still here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphone. Wikipedia is not meant to be about popularity, its meant to be about information that is relevant to a particular subject or field. So i put it to you that Reason is particularly relevant to the field of C++ frameworks, how many others can you find on wikipedia ? For your information, there have been over 2000 downloads of reason since it was released a year ago with little or no publicity, and many hundreds of thousands of people have viewed the site and its associated examples. As with many things, it may not be notable to you as an editor, but it does not mean its not notable to the thousdands of developers out there who have been struggling with development in C++. Get some perspective. --Emerson clarke (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I suggest that you read up on the site's Verifiability policy. You can say all you want how Reason is different, unique and important to C++ development and these would be good reasons to have the article; but unless there's more reputable sources outside of yourself (since you're the creator of Reason) who can back up your claims, there's no way we can verify any of what you're saying about the library. We need more than just grandiose claims about how this library is going to change the face of computing - we need someone authoritative and independent of this product's development to assure us that, yes, this is a worthwhile product that could warrant a Wikipedia article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I havnt said anything at all about Reason being grandiose, but i do maintain that its notable. The reasons why its notable are clearly explained in the article, and if you take the care to keep up with the edits you will see that i have been adding references which support this assesement. I don't believe i have made any claims about reason which would require independent verification. Its not like im saying its the fastest, or its the best, or its the most portable. I have simply stated what it is, and why it is that way, and attempted to explain the similarities and differences between it and other libraries and langauge like it. The article is quite clearly a discussion about the philosophy and design principles behind the framework. As has been pointed out here already, there is nothing wrong with the author of a body of work writing a wikipedia article about it provided that it is objective. And in any case, verifiability is not cause for deletion according to the policy, but hey, jump on the band wagon, beat it down, and dont give anyone else a chance to contribute becuase we all know that makes the world a better place.--Emerson clarke (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have completed a range of new edits, could everyone involved or who has made a comment here please take the time to review them and let me know if any progress is being made. I am assuming that you are neutral enough to actually care about progress being made, as opposed to resting on your already formed concensus opinion(s). I am still optimistic that there is a way i can author this article and still make it past the wikipedia standards. Thanks.--Emerson clarke (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - very weak assertion of notability, not supported by any Reliable Sources. After checking seven or eight of the references noted in the article and finding no reference to "Reason" at all, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there are no siginificant, verifiable, third-party sources at all. - fchd (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I have two issues with this deletion process, the first is that i dont think its working for the good of the article. As yet, not one single editor nor individual either here or on the comments page has actually tried to give constructive advice as to how the article may be improved. The second is that as stated on the guide to[44] This process does not work when editors merely echo the rationales of others, and do not double-check things for themselves. I wonder if notability would really be such an issue if it wasnt already listed here now that the page has been significantly changed.
    • You should realise that the references in the article are not to Reason, but to the general statements being made about software development, the C++ langauge, and other frameworks and libraries. I feel that you are just echoing the sentiments of other people in not assesing notability on merit, but rather by the popularity. In order to assess it on merit, and therefore have a true idea of notability, you need to look a little deeper.
    • I have argued that it is notable becuase of the points that i raised, and i have provided references which support those arguments. Performing simple searches for "reason c++ library" is only going to assess its popularity, and i have already stated that it does not have widespread adoption in the article. However, you will see that Reason appears 8th in the Google results for "C++ framework". With few of the other results being actual frameworks at all, GUI toolkits maybe, but not frameworks. This is the point that i am making about it being unique and therefore notable. Other searches which will return Reason in the results include "C++ hashmap", "C++ hashset", "C++ append array", "C++ xpath library", "C++ time interval", "C++ stringstream size". There are hundreds of things like this which represent organic searches for which Reason will be in the result set. Thats because they all represent common algorithms, datastructures, or difficulties programmers have with existing C++ frameworks and libraries.
    • Yes Reason is not as popular as you might like, but then all those results are generated from a single page of examples and it has not yet been widely publicised. I ask that you considder what you really mean by notable. According to the notability guide, the purpose of notability is to establish if the topic of an article is "worthy of notice" and is distinct from "fame" or "importance". All i ask is that you actually evaluate the topic (again, you need to look at what is being said about Reason, not just that i wrote it or that its a framework). If it were just another framework or library in the same style and the same genre as all the other GUI toolkits and utilities base around the C++ standard library idioms then it would not be notable and i wouldnt be bothering to try and get this point across.--Emerson clarke (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Still missing the point. The question is not "What sort of frameworks does C++ need", nor "Who should be using the Reason framework", nor yet "Is Reason a good framework", but simply is Reason well-known (i.e. notable) by people in the field and do third-party sources (i.e. not you) attest to this notability?. Bm gub (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
        • According to the guidelines, a topic is only presumed to be notable if its well-known. But notability isn't necessarily just about that, the very definition of the word implies a degree of merit should be considered. It may just be that it takes editors who are specifically knowledgeable about that field (as stated in the guidelines) to recognise that it may be notable. Not all topics can be judged by their online presence, and i think that is what notability has become defined by here, though i can understand the need for a coarse filter when managing something on this scale. Ill just have to wait until it has more publicly stated approval.--Emerson clarke (talk) 15:24, 10 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. Seems the article is in need of repair but covers a notable topic. Orderinchaos 13:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Student-teacher ratio

Student-teacher ratio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The current content is simply an essay not an article. I'm not sure what could be here except a blatantly obvious dicdef. An article on trends in this ratio in a given nation might be writable, but a general article?? Is there such a thing as a universal phenomena of student-teacher ratios? I think not. Sweeping generalisations like "Governments tend to argue" are not encouraging. Delete the essay, and remove the backlinks. Docg 01:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep topic is notable but many concerns above are valid. Given its prominent use in college rankings etc. it seems an article could be written on this. JJL (talk) 04:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Tat the term is notable is not in doubt. But notability ISN'T my reason for nomination, so your comment seems strange. Could you outline what an article on this could contain?--Docg 09:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, and fix, concept is notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It isn't a concept, it is a definition. There's a difference. Anyway, notability is NOT the reason I brought it here, so your comment slightly confuses me. How can an encyclopedic article be constructed here. I can't see it, if you can, will you explain?--Docg 09:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
From what I have gathered, articles are to be deleted not on the basis of what they are, but what they could be. If the article isn't well-written, it is to be fixed, not deleted. I happen to know that there is a body of theory on student-teacher ratios at all levels of education, and that it impacts student learning, union negotiations, and college rankings. Therefore the article should be improved from whatever state it was in that prompted you to nominate it from deletion. Blast Ulna (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering, could you find us some sources on this body of theory? Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 21:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I could, but my boss is leaning on me to get some work done. If the article does not get sourced by the end of this AfD, then I would be okay with it being deleted, as long as there is no ban on it being recreated in a better form. Blast Ulna (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
A simple Google search suffices. Newst stories and the like: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. These don't just mention the statistics in passing--they are focused on it. Google Scholar: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]; Walsh, M. (2006, January 23), "Vermont’s lowest in the nation student-teacher ratio comes under scrutiny", The Burlington Free Press. JJL (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, poor writing is not a valid reason for deletion, that is what WP:CLEANUP is for. This subject is notable and certainly (at least here in the UK) gets a lot of coverage in the mainstream media and it shouldn't be too hard to find some good references - Dumelow (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hm, poor writing is not the reason for deletion. This is not a subject. Educational resources in nation x, would be a subject, this is a term. Again, I ask what could be written about here that would not belong somewhere else? --Docg 15:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: A repackaging of self-evident words covering a concept that is also self-evident is a reason to delete. There is no reason to keep. This is beyond "poor wording" and right down to the bone of "nothing to say." Student teacher ratio, Teacher student ratio, Teacher students ratio, Students teacher ratio, Student-teacher ratio, etc., are all permutations of a subject that is well known, obvious, and not worth discussion on its own terms. In a general discussion of pedagogy, the ratio of students to teacher is quite significant, but as a concept isolated from that, it is not. I.e., if you're not talking about teaching, you're not talking about student/teacher ratios, and if you are talking about teaching, then discuss the subject there. This is a non-useful title, a fragmentation of content, and a subject that cannot be intelligently discussed independently of its context. (These ratios matter differently in kindergarten, college, and elementary school, and they matter differently in science and humanities and art classes. To try to speak of them otherwise is foolish.) Utgard Loki (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Blast Ulna. Also, Utgard Loki says that "these ratios matter differently in kindergarten, college, and elementary school, and they matter differently in science and humanities and art classes". That's precisely the kind of issue that could be discussed in this article! Legislation of student/teacher ratios is already mentioned in the article and is also an important aspect. Saying that this topic is not worth discussing in isolation from pedagogy seems to me like saying that atomic mass can't be discussed in isolation from atom... --Itub (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not a dictionary, and with no sources proving the topic is notable as an article topic, no reason to keep. David Fuchs (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete All it is is an explanation on the term and its meaning. As said above, WP is not a dictionary. This article really has no use. In addition, just as my opinion, nobody is really going to be researching on Wikipedia what a student-teacher ratio is because the term is self-explanatory for anybody with a third-grade education. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 21:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Keep After reading some comments that were posted after mine, I really changed my mind. This article does have potential to actually be something, it just needs a rewrite and maybe some more info. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 14:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep A standard term for a basic concept in educational statistics, and in popular use also. the basic meaning may be obvious, the full significance can be discussed., That's why its appropriate for an encyclopedia as well as a dictionary. DGG (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Further comment. I find it hard to believe that some people want to delete this because "the definition of the concept is simple". This is an indicator with a simple definition but with a significance that is far from simple. I see it similar to population density, for example; while the definition of population density is simple, its relationship with society, the environment, the economy, politics, crime, etc. is a fertile field for study that can be treated encyclopedically. Now, regarding the alleged lack of notability and sources. Google scholar gives 5540 results for "student teacher ratio" ( 3400 for "student teacher ratios", 2820 for "teacher student ratio", and 1410 for "teacher student ratios"), 4950 results for "pupil teacher ratio", 3400 for "pupil teacher ratios, 2250 for "teacher pupil ratio", and 1380 for "teacher pupil ratios") and 45,000 results for the related concept of "class size". Sure, many of these hits are passing mentions, but some are entirely focused on this topic and there are even books written about it. Some examples of articles/books that look interesting (note: I haven't read them yet):
I'm not saying that all of these articles need to be cited, but they prove IMO the notability of the topic. --Itub (talk) 09:57, 8 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 ZigBee. Orderinchaos 13:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drop-in Networking

Drop-in Networking (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

"Drop-in-Networking" which is apparently a specific companies trademark for Zigbee gets 1000 hits on Google and all of them refer to either Digi's PR announcement or one of the Wiki-clones. It is not noteable nor used within the industry. I propose we either delete or redirect to ZigBee. KelleyCook (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. I came across this article because I was looking for a meaning of the term "drop-in networking". Indeed it is a modification (arguably minor) of Zigbee. If decision will be made to create a redirect to Zigbee then it's worthwhile to make a paragraph about "drop-in networking" there. User:Abune (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy  Talk  01:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn (related to one particular small project); a redirect if desired is fine too. JJL (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect, relevent material can have it's own paragraph at Zigbee otherwise not notable -Dumelow (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's a package for a product already covered, and the content of the article reads like advertising or a product description. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This article discusses more than just ZigBee which appears to be a sub-set of Drop-in Networking. Drop-in Networking consists of the convergence of cellular, ZigBee, Wifi and other wireless technologies. Dirgison 17:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.77.174.126 (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of vehicles in Invader Zim

List of vehicles in Invader Zim (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod- "poppycock", evidently. Fails WP:FICT as a near-completely in universe treatment. David Fuchs (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete seems like a minor aspect--no evidence that it's notable or that it's a reasonable split of the main article. JJL (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, Invader Zim is the most brilliant thing every shown on Nick, but this is not notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's just in-universe detail with no real world notability established. Waffles! Bill (talk|contribs) 09:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Listmania and really not significant in terms of fiction or gaming. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, per WP:NOT#INFO and WP:FICT, collection of fictional information that lacks real world notability. Possibly transwiki to Zimwiki [56] AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This article seems to be non-notable. There are no sources specified, and it fails WP:FICT. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above comments Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 22:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep ...unless it can be clearly defined how this particular list of fictional vehicles is less worthy of an article than the near-identical ones for Star Trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who, James Bond, Masters of the Universe, Warhammer, and everything else. Yes, it needs references, but that makes it an article in need of improvement, not deletion. Clayhalliwell (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Argument is that other articles exist and, why should these be kept if this article is not? For Star Wars, Star Trek, (and Dr. Who in the UK) a case can be made that the images of their respective vehicles have transcended culture and are featured in parody and elsewhere. Anecdotally, vehicles from these series are identifiable even to people with only a cursory familiarity with the show. I question what notable third party verifiable sources can be provided for Invader Zim vehicles. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
As noted in Other Stuff Exists, this is not always an invalid argument for keeping an article. In this case, Wikipedia has established via the precedent of the massive and unchallenged Star Trek/Star Wars/etc. articles that lists of vehicles in fiction are not sewage.
The question thus becomes one strictly of notability. As per the WP:FICT guidelines, otherwise good articles should be given the opportunity to establish their notability, as there is of course no deadline. For this article, the issue comes down to how much of a stickler the admins decide to be about secondary sources. The overwhelming majority of the information in the article can easily be referenced from primary sources (the episodes themselves), but more importantly the parent article has no such notability concerns.
Furthermore, since nobody has challenged the article as un-encyclopedic, it's valid to defend it as useful (currently the number one Google hit for "Invader Zim vehicles"). Clayhalliwell (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
If you can bring out some third party sources that substantially cover vehicles in Invader Zim I'd be happy to say we should keep the article and attempt to clean it up instead of deleting it. I've been editing Zim articles for a long time now and this one has never shown signs of having sources to establish individual notability. Bill (talk|contribs) 22:54, 8 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Clinton Political Machine

The Clinton Political Machine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Page violates WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a soap box. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 01:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • delete-ish. There's a potential article here, as there really is a "Clinton political machine" that's separate from the Democrat Party. But this article ain't it. It's too short, it's unreferenced, and it says nothing about the successes of the machine. For now, move it to Clinton political machine (per WP:MOS) and make it redirect it to Hillary Rodham Clinton#Presidential campaign of 2008. Argyriou (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. While there may be a potential article about the key supporters and tactics of Clinton (either or both), this is just a grab-bag of unsourced allegations/claims. --Dhartung | Talk 09:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is nonsense. The Democratic Leadership Council is "the Clinton machine." People should know better than to repackage for malign, slang terminology. If people read the Bill Clinton article first, they know that his political ideology and ideas came from there and that this was a break from the "traditional" Democratic Party. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as poorly-sourced neologism. Majoreditor (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As per Utgard, this is nonsense. Poorly sourced. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nonsense Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 22:20, 7 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. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geneva Red Wings

Geneva Red Wings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

spam for a nn college league team, no sources, fails WP:ORG, prod removed Delete Secret account 00:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Possibly so, but I think they just scrape by the notability guidelines. Polly (Parrot) 21:54, 12 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. Patent nonsense not even worth calling an hoax. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pube snake

Pube snake (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Just plain nonsense. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as nonsense -- sure looks like a llama to me. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:45, 6 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.