Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 10 January 12 >
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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jyte

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

Website that doesn't assert significance. Just describes history and features. Can't speedy because it survived a previous AfD (the article was created in vanity when the site was launched) with "no consensus" TheBilly (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete for non-notability. It exists and has some users, but that does not make it notable. Springnuts (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Article is non-notable. Ohmpandya (Talk) 02:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Only one of the references is independent. JohnCD (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Delete - insufficient reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per notability arguments. TheRingess (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. the wub "?!" 00:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enoch seminar

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

Delete An academic gathering cannot become a separate encyclopedic article. If you make a separate article for each and every seminar around the world, then wikipeida will be a mess. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)) Keep I am withdrawing my nomination as sources are given and sign of notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, source, and remove waffle - sources as indicated below show notability but the article is terribly tedious. Delete for non-Notability - fails WP:N. Springnuts (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Springnuts (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The article shall not be deleted! The objections raised at the presence of an article on the Enoch Seminar in Wikipedia are obviously only based on some misunderstandings. The Enoch Seminar, founded in 2000 by Gabriele Boccaccini (University of Michigan), is not an occasional gathering of scholars but a permanent, well-established academic group supported by the Dept. of Near Eastern Studies of the University of Michagan and the Michigan Center for Early Christian Studies. The size and importance of the Enoch Seminar are comparable to the Jesus Seminar (to which Wikipedia has devoted a long article). Like in the case of the Jesus Seminar, this is a permanent academic institution, meant to last for many years to come. Among the about 200 members of the group are virtually all the most distinguished world specialists in the field of Second Temple Judaism, from Europe, America and Israel, including James Charlesworth, Daniel Boyarin, Lawrence Schiffman, John J. Collins, James C, VanderKam, Michael Stone, Paolo Sacchi, Hindy Najman, George Nickelsburg, Hanan Eshel, Martha Himmelfarb, Albert Baumgarten, Helge Kvanvig, Klaus Koch, Lester Grabbe, Robert Kraft, Michael Knibb, etc. etc.

    The Enoch Seminar has already organized 5 international conferences and two graduate conferences and published 6 volumes (one by Brill, three by Eerdmans, one by Zamorani, and one by Morcelliana). This is not an occasional gathering of scholars, by an established and well-organized group, promoted and supported by the University of Michigan and the Michigan Center for Early Christian Studies, with a website, funds, and an ongoing program of biennial conferences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.136.73 (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

    • And yet you don't cite a single source against which any of your claims can be verified. As such, the closing administrator has no reason to believe you. Sources! Sources! Sources! You'll notice that Jesus Seminar#References has quite a few. Uncle G (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You were perfectly right, but this can be easily provided. I checked and I saw that there is a vast bibliography supporting the claims of the article. I think I have now added the necessary references and external links to support the statements in the article, which were missing. It seemed to me that with these much-needed modifications, the article now meets the criteria of Wikipedia. The problem was the format of the article, not the contents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pibertal (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article on the Enoch Seminar shall not be deleted. The Enoch Seminar is not just an ordinary scholarly seminar, but a very prominent school or movement of contemporary theological and biblical thought similar to such theological schools, like the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule or Wissenschaft des Judentums movement which already have their entries in the WiKi. So it is natural to include an entry on the Enoch Seminar too. About the question of lacking the sources/references to the Enoch Seminar, it should be said that a lot of references to the Enoch Seminar are circulating in the paper publications, monographs, articles in refereed journals, closed databases of academic publishing, because of the copyright issues, but some of them can be found on the web. See for example here: http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/dsd --Enochmetatron (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading an article by Thomas Kraus about the Enoch Seminar in the Review of Biblical Literature. http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=4898 Thomas Kraus is not an attendee or member of the Enoch Seminar, and the Review of Biblical Literature has an established reputation as an academic, independent journal. In his article Kraus presents a history of the Enoch Seminary that confirms all the claims of the article posted on Wikipedia. The article should be cited as a conclusive piece of evidence of the notability of the Enoch Seminar, in addition to the many other references now cited in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gboccaccini (talk • contribs) 04:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly recomand to keep this entry. The Enoch Seminar had contributed significaly to the field of Second Temple period research. It allowed scholars from different countries and differnt background to meet and to discuss major topics in the study of Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. I believe that already more than a dozen articles were written because of those seminars. Those meetings are important because they allow scholars from the United Staes to meet scholars from Europe and Israel, and to share ideas and insights and to get to know each other. I hope that in the future these seminars will continue to contribute to my field of reseach. Hanan Eshel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.48.201 (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete – clearly fails WP:N. KrakatoaKatie 03:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Original Magazine

The Original Magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: Went through a PROD-dePROD cycle in early December and rePROD in January '08. Second PROD nominator states "Does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:NOTE." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete -or- Merge to Student Media section of Pitt article. Fails WP:N, only sources that can be located refer to information on Pitt's own website (not an independent source), so definitely should not be a solo article, but I can see arguing for a mention in the article as above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeternitas827 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: WikiProject Journalism has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Almost unverifiable magazine that's been published twice. Welcome back once it's better established. Pburka (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - concur. the magazine has only been publiched twice and its not even clear that it is notable within the student community for a merge. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.TheRingess (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete – clearly fails WP:CORP. KrakatoaKatie 03:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1iProductions

1iProductions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to be verifiable. While the games might be notable, there's no trace of the company on google. (22 ghits total). MER-C 05:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete The games have their own article, and from those and the hits on the games it doesn't appear that 1i Productions was the only one involved in it. No other works from the company are apparent, and the company appears to fail WP:N as no secondary sources reflect any information on this company. Aeternitas827 (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 because there is no consensus for the article deletion. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regular expression examples

Regular expression examples (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This article currently offers nothing that isn't found on a thousand other simple regex tutorials and help files. If users feel the (currently Perl-specific) content is helpful, it can be moved to Wikibooks. Nominating per WP:NOT#GUIDE: Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook. Monger (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this deletion rationale is that the general audience reader (the target audience of all Wikimedia projects) has no clue what a Regular Expression even is. On that basis alone, the rationale for inclusion is pretty clear, we need to provide unfamiliar readers with some kind of context and a foundation.
For clarity, I will outline the specific problems with this deletion proposal:
  • This article currently offers nothing that isn't found on a thousand ... tutorials
That's a good thing, it means that it's consistent with WP:V and WP:RS. If there's any content within Wikipedia that cannot be found elswhere, then it shouldn't be in an article in the first place.
That was not the basis of my nominating the article for deletion. Rather, it was meant to imply that external regex syntax guides and examples can be linked to from the main regular expression article (and already are). Also, I'm not sure that the policy and content guideline you cited are relevant here. You verify a regular expression example by running it. Monger (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not aware of any basis for deleting WP content simply because it can be found on other sites. Perhaps you can strengthen this point a bit b/c the logic is not quite grabbing me yet. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If users feel the (currently Perl-specific) content is helpful it can be moved to Wikibooks
That's a good course of action if you wish to expand the content into a full-blown book on how to program regular expressions in perl (or other languages as well), but that has nothing to do with whether this specific article on Wikipedia should be deleted.
Again, there are many topics within Wikipedia that are covered in more detail in Wikibooks and elsewhere. The question is not whether content is duplicated, the question is whether the content is appropriate on the basis of the material alone.
This again is not related to why I nominated the article for deletion. I simply mentioned it as a way to easily preserve the content for those who think it's useful. Monger (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem, but then let's save that discussion for after you've justified the deletion. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook
Although correct, this point really does not apply to this article. Please take a close re-look at the content and notice that there is not a single sentence in the article that tells readers "how to". It's just a bunch of examples and explanations to help people understand the concepts and principles explained in the "regular expression" article.
What is example code if not a demonstration of "how to"? In any case, the current content is not even really based around examples. It is a (currently Perl-specific) regex syntax guide, with a basic example of using each construct that is introduced. Monger (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Example code is commonplace in Wikipedia articles. Category:Articles with example code. You do realize, do you not, that not everyone who looks at a snippet of example code is a computer programmer. Just as not everyone who looks at an excerpt of poetry is a poet. Just as not everyone who looks at a cookbook is a chef. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The use of examples in Wikipedia articles is a well-established and respected convention. Please see just for a quick example: Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(command-line_examples).
That's a straw man. I never argued against the use of examples in the main regular expression article. In fact, it already contains heaps of examples, which are generally quite relevant and useful. Monger (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
O.k., now you seem to be contradicting yourself. Right after you said What is example code if not a demonstration of "how to" you also said I never argued against the use of examples. Please give yourself an opportunity to really get a solid and concise view of what you are really objecting to here. It will help focus the discussion. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Finally, the rationale for having a separate article for this is also pretty straightforward. The Regular Expression article itself was getting very cluttered and crowded with examples, and this separation provided a good way to organize the content. In other words this was a stylistic and editorial decision that really had nothing to do with helping people "learn" how to program regular expressions. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. In fact, examples of all of the types of constructs shown on the regular expression examples page are already found in the main regular expression article -- quantifiers, grouping, character classes, zero-width assertions, etc. IMO, this article currently offers two things: an extremely basic Perl regex syntax guide, and a bunch of Perl sample code that is better suited to an article on Perl than regular expressions. Plus, as mentioned in the nomination, according to WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. Monger (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You're repeating yourself now. Unless you've something new to add, please feel free remain in your state of disagreement. Please also feel free to re-read the article and the point about Perl syntax being common to more languages than just Perl. All of your other (repeated) points have been directly addressed above. Cheers. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
My closing line was intended to be humorously redundant, but it didn't really work (at least you agree I got the redundant part). For the record, I know a lot about both the Perl regex flavor and most of the high-profile Perl-derivative flavors (expanding my knowledge of the greater regex flavor/library landscape is sort of a hobby for me). In any case, while I don't think the flavor-specific aspect of the regexes themselves is really relevant to this discussion, I do object to the use of Perl code to demonstrate generic regular expression examples since I think that is more appropriate in articles about Perl or e.g. a section of the regular expression article dedicated to Perl. In fact, I don't think generic regex examples should be described in the context of any programming language, since their use is certainly broader than that. --Monger (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
If your only substantive objection is the Perl-specificity, I'd actually agree with you on that also. The fact of Perl-emphasis in a RegEx article on Wikipedia is almost certainly more a function of expediency than completeness or academic rigor. To put it plainly, Perl gets more attention (in this context) simply because most people have at least "heard of" Perl and know it has "something to do" with regular expressions. Even people who don't know programming languages or regular expressions get exposed to this. That's just an artifact of history. On that basis alone it is a justifiable (if not optimal) choice to use Perl, if only because it's a familiar foundation that makes the article accessible.
That being said, a better solution to deleting the content would be to enhance the content. It would be *great* if this article actually touched on some of the broader use you elude to. The problem is once you "open the box" beyond the realm of widespread and mainstream programming language idioms, you immediately risk making the article a lot more turgid and incomprehensible to the general interest readers.
After all, lets be blunt, most people who have any interest in these articles are probably the types who are just trying to figure out some piece of code that looks like gibberish to them, and they don't want to look stupid when people in their organization talk about "regular expressions". Indeed, since WP is not a tutorial site, the primary beneficiaries of this and the main article are probably not even computer scientists or programmers (who already know there are better sites for language-specific specifications or tutorials).
Nevertheless, if you've got the acumen and sagacity to step out on that ledge and write up some solid, accessible enhancements, that do not confuse the general audience readers, I for one am cheering for you. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since I'm not sure if this is the appropriate forum to continue this discussion between myself and dr.ef.tymac and we seem to have a fundamental disagreement about what content is encyclopedic, I'll just let my comments here so far stand. However, whichever way this goes I'd be willing to discuss further after the AfD. Monger (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep In this rather special case, the topic is notable and the article should be expanded. I am not sure the title is hte best one; but perhaps it can be best seen a a subarticle for regular expression. DGG (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete much of the content of this page also appears in Regular expression. Transwiki to Wikibooks may be an option. --Salix alba (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I found it useful. Another option might be to merge it with the main entry for regular expressions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.167 (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Transwiki Its not a great article, but would make a great wikibook. transwiki to wikibooks RogueNinjatalk 16:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Regular expression. While long, this is not a topic that merits its own article. Examples of multiplication are found in thousands of math textbooks, but that doesn't mean they merit their own article. --Fabrictramp (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Also, the examples should be expanded, such as for use in text editors during search-and-replace. I am a computer scientist who has been using regular expressions for over 30 years, and I believe that the numerous, complex details to fully illustrate examples are far beyond the context of the overview article ("regular expression"). Dozens of examples are needed to explain the concepts, due to the complex interactions of various expressions and the subpatterns within. The examples for regular expressions aren't analogous to "multiplication" (or even long division) but rather more like examples of solutions (tricks) for partial differential equations. A wide variety of examples should be presented, which would be beyond the scope of the current overview article. Several scientists have complained that Wikipedia has tried to inhibit the presentation of knowledge within their fields. Forcing the numerous examples back into the main article would inhibit the presentation. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 03:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrity All-Star Game

Celebrity All-Star Game (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is about the 2007 McDonalds celebrity all star game, NBA. While the article has no sources it is verifiable with a Google search. My concern is notability - I don't think it deserves an article. CastAStone//(talk) 01:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete: While definitely verifiable, no independent, reliable sources are cited in the article, and Googling does not seem to yield any. Mouchoir le Souris (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with 2007 NBA All-Star Game. Independent, reliable sources exist -- see here -- but this doesn't need an article of its own. Zagalejo^^^ 05:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete this hypergeneric title. 70.51.8.231 (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Addhoc (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lolums

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

Doesn't seem to fit any of the blatant speedy criteria, so listing here. Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 00:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The animal within

The animal within (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced, written like an advertisement, questionable notability of organization VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 23:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete This is blatant spam, why isn't it speedy? BlinkingBlimey (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Obviously created for commercial reasons. Egdirf (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete G11, also some copy paste from [1], possibly more -- pb30<talk> 23:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Snowball delete - WP:Copyvio AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was withdraw. I didn't check this out properly before nominating it for deletion, and it appears that he is notable enough for an article. Egdirf (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Fox (actor)

Philip Fox (actor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about an actor whose notability is questionable. Many of his roles are small, and the article was probably only created due to recent events. Egdirf (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I should perhaps explain a little more here. Philip Fox appeared in See It Saw It, a series in which the actress Natasha Collins also had a role. I feel that this article is only here becasue of the recent death of Miss Collins and the interest this created among certain Wikipedia editors. Egdirf (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I cannot at all see why this page has been listed for deletion. I created it and, yes, I know it's a stub, but being a stub is no good reason per se for deletion. Plenty of other actor pages are stubs. Neddyseagoon - talk 23:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You should have waited until I had created the page. Egdirf (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm confused by this comment? Are you saying that this person is notable but you wanted to create the page, not the other party? That's what it looks like to me, but I apologize if I misunderstood.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I had placed the afd template on the page, but a keep was added to this discussion page before I'd had chance to do the necessary opening procedure. I thought the person should have waited, but it might have been ok for them to do this. I'm not entirely sure how it works. As for whether Philip Fox is notable or not, my nomination is really inspired by the recent Natasha Collins/Kate Crossley debates. Egdirf (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Sorry if I jumped the gun - this page should have been created straight after the nomination surely? Just wanted to get my comment in first. I argue that yes he is notable, and I wanted to create this page asap to defend that.Neddyseagoon - talk 21:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Unlike Natasha Collins and Kate Crossley (which should indeed be deleted), Philip Fox does have a long career as a character actor. No doubt the page was indeed created because of the interest in Natasha Collins - but it deserved to be created anyway. - PinkEllie (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, a look at the credits on IMDb[2] show he is notable, even if he tends to have small roles. Bob talk 13:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Has a fairly long list of credits stretching back several years. We should keep and expand this article, and add a few good references. Paul20070 (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I created the page as I noted him in the cast list of a just-broadcast episode of Foyle's War Series Six (creation edit here). I was unaware that he was linked to the Collins story. The link to that story was added by the unregistered user 88.109.118.83 9 hours later. Neddyseagoon - talk 21:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Then please accept my apologies. I should have checked the page history before this nomination. I see from the imdb that he has quite a long list of credits, so is probably notable. Having had time to reflect on my decision yesterday, I actually feel quite bad about the fact I have nominated this article for deletion. Am I allowed to withdraw the afd nomination? Egdirf (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete - unreferenced article on minor character. KrakatoaKatie 04:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Herko

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

A minor comic character that makes a single appearance is not notable enough for an individual article. The article is also entirely unreferenced. Nothing links to it. Prod has been removed by the author. DanielRigal (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • aCTUALLY I AM WRONG AND HERKO IS WAY COOL SO IGNOR DIZ ARTICLE (Unsigned comment by User:Woland37)
  • Comment. I think the above comment is intended to be interpreted as a keep ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete he was in one issue of Superman. --CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 03:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for the time being. We haven't built the framework which would see a character as minor as this mentioned on Wikipedia yet. Hiding T 12:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, no reliable secondary sources exist to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nor consensus to keep the article, but the looks like the discussion is leaning towards keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Loci (band)

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

Speedy denied. Admins really should check the sources and not just claim that sources are shown to establish notability. All source are self published. Ridernyc (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

sometimes admins DO check sources. See: this one the article cites and this one and this one too and this one and this one also. It should be noted that the denial of a speedy is NOT an edorsement of the article NOR is it a statement that the article should not be deleted. Speedy deletion for A7 is only for cases where the article does not make any claims about being notable; this one clearly does, and so should be up for discussion. If these sources do not make the article notable, then everyone will agree with you. I am official neutral, and will make my decision later based on the arguements made by both sides in this one. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
And editors should check speedy deletion policy before accusing admins of getting it wrong. WP:CSD#A7 says, "This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources". If you want to delete something based on lack of independent reliable sources then this (AfD) is the way to do it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


I appreciate you checking the sources Jayron32. As you say, the sources are NOT all self published at all-I have included a number of sources published by third parties which I believe make a case for notability.

Iciclecake (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)iciclecake

what part of WP:BAND? Ridernyc (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see article 11 of WP:BAND regarding radio airplay. As now discussed in the article with citations, this band has been regularly played on BBC radio-they even have their own featured page on the BBC website and the bands EP has a featured page too.

Also, article 4 which regards bands having completed 'a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country'-This band tours nationally, as can be seen from the sources.

Iciclecake (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)iciclecake

  • Weak keep - based on the reliable sources that could be gleaned from a 27 entry reference list for a 5 sentence article. Seriously, that needs some editorial work to trim it down to actual usable references and sources instead of what appears to be a desperate attempt to make sure there are references to avoid a deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: My weak keep is based on very thin reliable sources which essentially boil down to a couple of articles from the BBC, one of which is rather short. They are this album review which is the most substantial, and this short article indicating they have received radio airplay. That's very weak in my opinion, but enough to squeak by on the keep side. -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok-I have edited the sources down considerably today- hope this improves the article.Iciclecake (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment this google search basically disproves notabilty [3]

35 google hits for The band name combined with the name of the EP. As far as meeting WP:Band, if someone wants to show me the source that shows they received airplay I'll be glad to look at it. As far as touring it has to be covered in reliable sources. Any band can book a tour getting it covered is the important part. Ridernyc (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - the link I refer to in my note expanding on the reason for my weak keep nots that they have received airplay. -- Whpq (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Snow delete. - PeaceNT (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Thomson

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

suspected WP:HOAX. There is no evidence such an anime exists. ANN has no entry on it at all. The content is contradictory (OVA doesn't air on Japanese TV), and 160 episodes? Such a lengthy series would certainly not have been overlooked by any of the Anime sources. No speedy option for hoaxes, so AfDing instead. Collectonian (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as hoax. I'm a huge fan of Gonzo Studios, who are the proclaimed to be the producers of this anime. If it ran on Cartoon Network since 2000 I would've known about it. Nothing on their website - either in English or from the Japanese i can read. Zippo on imdb. Proclaimed to be airing on the Anime Network who don't have it listed as a current or former show I don't think that a Japanese studio would make an anime about a NN American. It first proclaims to have 160 episodes, then in the table, claims to have 29 episodes. OVAs don't run for 160 episodes (OVA equals "original video animation", almost always some sort of mini-series). Seems to be a hoax hacked together using otaku jargon by someone who clearly isn't. Doc Strange (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Echo Doc Strange's comments. Doesn't exist, plain and simple. A textbook case of WP:BALLS. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete This is an obvious hoax. WP:IAR should be applied and the article deleted as quickly as possible. --Farix (Talk) 00:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, only added help the snowball roll down the hill. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete One of the more poorly done hoaxes I've seen. Edward321 (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - referenced, including recent media attention. - KrakatoaKatie 04:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noël Martin

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

Delete sad story, true, and newsy at the time, but not of lasting noteworthiness and WP:BLP1E. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, WP:BLP1E is for people involved in relatively unimportant crimes, I believe this crime and the effect it has taken on the victim is not unimportant in the greater picture of the new Neo-Nazi movement in Germany. The subject has also once again be subject of media reports in December 07, see [4]. Note that I am the creator of the article and therefor slightly biased, Poeloq (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, but it should be better referenced, and made clear that his notability is largely drawn on his announced intention to seek assisted suicide due to the permanent disability he suffered in the attack. He has received quite a bit of attention in German(y). --Dhartung | Talk 05:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Dhartung and Poeloq.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Til Death Do Us Part (Philippine TV series)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/'Til Death Do Us Part (Philippine TV series)
'Til Death Do Us Part (Philippine TV series) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article lacks any source or claim of notability. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And what do you know, I've found some:
  1. ABS-CBN feature about the show
  2. Entertainment write-up about negative feedback (cited Jun Nardo of tabloid "Abante" as the source)
  3. Part of a series of reviews on ABS-CBN's "30 New Shows for 2005", which included TDDUP Starczamora (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I'm quite open to a keep if there was any real significant coverage. The ABS-CBN coverage I would discount as it was a show for their network, and that materiakl is essentially a press release for themselves. The starcirclequest appears to be some community type web site and so it probably doesn't meet the threshold for a reliable source. And the Asian Journal mention is part of an overall column on upcoming programs. If there were news articles independent of ABS-CBN writing about it as a mjor flop, then I would be convinced of its notability. -- Whpq (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
1) A write-up about the show, whether written by ABS-CBN's PR department or other entertainment reporters, are considered valid under Wikipedia (case in point, Philippine Idol also features write-ups from its official website). 2) The second article obviously cannot be considered directly as a valid source. However, the article mentioned that it was "copied and pasted" from an old entertainment column in "Abante" (its website, however, has archives of up to 2007 while the article was written in 2005). 3) Asian Journal is a valid source, although the article came from INQ7.net (which has long been inactive). Starczamora (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Press releases are specifically not reliable sources as they are not independent. -- Whpq (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia states that Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. In short, press releases can be used as sources if written to the article as descriptive and NPOV as possible. Starczamora (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Press releases, as they are self-written, do not substantiate notability. I am not saying the article is factually inaccurate, so the accuracy of information from a press release is not relevant. I am saying that the subject is not notable. If it is notable, it would have attracted press coverage. If the failure of the show was considered a major flop, then there would be articles about how this show was a major flop. I see no such articles. -- Whpq (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
As others have stated, as long as it is aired, a TV show is considered NOTABLE, flop or no flop (check my previous examples, which only lasted for several episodes). Also, considering how bad Philippine entertainment websites archive their previous articles, it's hard to search for write-ups about a subject that was shown in 2005. We would have to go to the library to do that, which is also the argument in Serena Dalrymple. Starczamora (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep TV series that aired are notable by default. --Howard the Duck 13:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 23:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mansehra International Public School

Mansehra International Public School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article containing bad grammar and reads like an advertisement, has had cleanup tags for a year and no attempt has been made to remedy the article The tim (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: Those are reasons for cleanup, not deletion. the wub "?!" 00:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - the nomination contains no grounds for deletion. Certainly the page needs a thorough clean but that is no reason to delete. International schools are unusual and therefore generally notable. We have little enough coverage of education in Pakistan and deleting one of the few pages we have doesn't seem like a great idea. TerriersFan (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: no attempt has been made to clean this up for too long, it appears it will never be cleaned and needs a fresh start. 203.109.169.70 (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - which, again, is not a valid deletion ground. TerriersFan (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm a bit concerned about sourcing. I can't find a school web site and I'm not yet sure about the reliability of the Web sites I've seen in a Google results list. Pakistani schools are important subjects, and we should try to provide sources. The school is located in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan. Along with Waziristan, that's the Worldwide Headquarters of Islamic terrorism today. Religious schools (madrassas) have been an important way radical ideas have spread in that region, so this school might be an important counter to that. It's also the kind of institution that gets targeted by terrorists. I'll be looking for reliable sources, and I hope others do, too. Noroton (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - As a start, I have stripped the page down by removing the ad material and added material and independent sources to meet WP:N. The problem with searches is that the school is referred to in a variety of contractions of its full name for example Mansehra Public School and others. TerriersFan (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm impressed with TerriersFan's work. I've looked at the sources, one of which I had doubts about before, and they appear to be reliable. The objections to the article have been overcome. Noroton (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thanks to the work of TerriersFan this article easily meets the criteria for article inclusion. We need more articles on schools in Pakistan like this. 13:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahliarose (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 04:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] '88 Demo

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/'88 Demo
'88 Demo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article on what appears to be a demo for a not spectacular band. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 – well-referenced article, meets WP:WEB. Links to copyrighted works should be removed, if any exist. KrakatoaKatie 05:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] INDUCKS

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

This site fails WP:WEB and the article is purely promotional in nature. Claims to be "the second largest freely available comics database", but its an unsupported self proclamation that does not establish real notability. Primarily sources are the site itself and fan sites, along with a few that do not even mention INDUCKS at all. Additionally, the site appears to violate numerous Disney copyrights, which would make linking to in a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. As it states in WP:EL: "Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." Collectonian (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. As one of the freelancers who work for the Danish publisher of Disney comics, I can assure you that INDUCKS is useful on a daily basis. 85.81.82.15 (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:N, has not gained significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Neutral, for newly added sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The project's indexed data are extensively used not only by users, but even by most Disney publishers all over the world. And they credit the project often on their actual paper publication. That'd be kind of weird if the site really violated any copyrights at all. If there are problems with some of the contents of this article (like the claim of being the second largest comics db) of course they can be solved by rephrasing or removing those contents. Lazarus Long (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I believe this is very useful and serious source of information. Philou1024 (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. No, Collectionian, the article is not "purely promotional in nature". It has got an interesting section of history, among other things. But I agree that the sentence about being the second largest freely available comics database should be removed if there is no source for it. --EIRIK\talk 17:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I just added a few scholarly and independant sources. I would like also to correct some of the criticisms of Collectonian.
    • The site is purely promotional in nature: first the Inducks is non-commercial and distributed under a free licence. Second it seems to me that the real names mentioned in this article (some of which are not people of Inducks like Per Starback) were copied from articles to this Wikipedia entry. If you look at the main website, you'll see that the contributors names are very well hidden. So I don't see any promotion goal, although I would actually prefer to remove most names since they're not of much interest.
    • Claims to be "the second largest freely available comics database", but its an unsupported self proclamation that does not establish real notability: I removed that sentence now (which was not on the website BTW), but with 80,000 indexed comics it surely is noticable.
    • Primarily sources are the site itself and fan sites, along with a few that do not even mention INDUCKS at all. I have added lots of other sources scholar and external, please have a look at them. There is no study per se on Inducks, but it's an established and recognized source of information (especially for Disney publishers who use codes that were originally made up by Inducks).
    • Additionally, the site appears to violate numerous Disney copyrights. Actually no: Inducks does not contain any image, Outducks does. It is a collection of fan websites that provide thumbnails of covers and stories. An Inducks search engine, COA, has links to those thumbnails, but those are not hosted on inducks.org. Herve661 (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC) PS: I am the main author of the article.
  • A site doesn't have to be a paid site to have a promotional article. For the copyright, I thought I'd linked to an example, but guess not. This is the link for their page on Goofy[5]. The page does not say "hey, we don't host these images" and if OutDucks is part of InDucks, it is really the same thing. Also, notice they very clearly invite people to upload more scans of images, which is certainly a copyright violation and a clear indication that they support these images. There is only a single tiny note at the bottom of the COA pages noting the images belong to Disney, and that's it. No mention of their having permission or anything. Collectonian (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You linked to it here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_11#Template:Inducks_character. However, I dont know if the note at the bottom is sufficient but when such images is used on wikipedia for example there is not even a note, You must go to the image page to se that it is a copyrighted image. Skizzik (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If you think the article is too promotional, I suggest to improve the text (I just removed a few names) rather than remove the article. Outducks is indeed a separate project (the domain names are owned by different entities). At this page, it says for instance "picture from outducks.org". There are a few images of the (main) characters without this notice indeed, but these are still hosted on Outducks. I believe this is fair use (just like GCD has lots of covers or even Wikipedia has lots of images under fair use - and here it is not even inducks but outducks). The logo image of Inducks on this article is also a copyrighted image, reproduced by fair use, and you may upload images through Wikipedia, so the situation is similar to me. Herve661 (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You are the one who created the article. The onus is on you to ensure it meets the notability requirements for websites, doesn't just read like the "about us" page of the site (which it still does), and is actually neutral. All of the sources added, alas, few people can confirm as it appears few, if any, are in English or on-line. In particular, I think a better source is needed for the claim that Disney has started using codes from InDucks, like something from Disney themselves or a major, reliable news source. Also, you might want to visit WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Citation templates to help with learning how to format references. Collectonian (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I did not create this article, user Entheta did. Regarding the fact that Disney publishers use Inducks storycodes - I don't know if it's documented anywhere, but it's not difficult to see: the codes starting with "ZM" or "YM" that Inducks introduced (for Mickey Mouse daily strips or sunday pages) can be found in Gemstone comics. US comic-books codes (the Inducks way, like "W DD 99-01") are used by the Dutch publisher Sanoma. Likewise, Gemstone uses codes like "S 63001" (a la Inducks) instead of the previous Disney way, "S 3001". Here is an image from "Love Trouble" in Walt Disney's Comics 671, a recent issue, which has a printed "YM" code, and here is a message from 2003 which explains that Inducks invented these storycodes. Herve661 (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC) PS: improved a bit the ref. layout.
  • Ah, my mistake. You've done the majority of the editing and I thought I'd seen where you created it, but must have misread. Still, the idea is the same. Those making the claim have the burden to prove it with a valid, verifiable source. If the idea that Disney publishers are using Inducks storycodes is not documented anywhere, then that claim is now verifiable and does not belong in the article. One can say "it's not difficult to see," but extrapolating from looking at stuff like that is original research and not something verified as a "reliable source." A Google news group post is NOT a valid source in any way shape or form.Collectonian (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not extrapolating, I know perfectly what I'm talking about and was just trying to give some elements to convince people that I'm not adding wrong information, even though one may argue about the relevance of one source or another. I hope other users among Disney comics fans will be able to confirm this well-known fact. Herve661 (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, that is not verifiability. Read the page WP:V. Verifiable means it has been documented in by a neutral, reliable third party source. Otherwise, it is just speculation and guess work. No matter how "educated" it is not verifiable and, as such, should not be included in the article or used as a claim of notability. Collectonian (talk) 05:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to give some elements here that I thought could be useful to the discussion. People who knows a bit about Disney comics will have no problem agreeing with what I wrote. We can remove this fact from the article until someone has a "proof". Herve661 (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • All of the sources added, alas, few people can confirm as it appears few, if any, are in English or on-line. I guess this is a problem with the very nature of the subject: Disney comics aren't very popular in English-speaking countries. On the other hand, they are very popular in some other countries. See for example the intro section at Disney comics for a reference. Since most readers are from non-English-speaking countries, most litterature on the subject is written in languages other than English, mainly various European languages. But it should be possible to have articles about things almost unknown in the English-speaking world, but very popular elsewhere, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Experts on the subject, who are the most likely to contribute with the article, usually know at least one of these articles. You also mentioned that many of the sources listed weren't online sources. Have you taken a look at the article lately? It seems that a quite significant portion of the references go to online sources. Also note that Inducks, a rather short article, contains a lot of references, while Gyōji, a much longer article, doesn't contain a single one. (Stefan2 (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC))
  • All of the sources added, alas, few people can confirm as it appears few, if any, are in English or on-line. So, you're saying that sources in other languages than english are not reliable? I object to that. The reason that it is hard to find neutral news sources concerning the database is quite obvious; not many major news sources are interested in dealing with comics, and even less with databases about comics. But this project doesn't gain anything by "promoting itself". The use of Inducks codes by publishers of Disney comics is a well-known fact in the business. --Oledamse (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Collectonian, I'm David Gerstein, Archival Editor with the North American domestic Disney comics (published by Gemstone), and I can confirm that Inducks is an invaluable resource in our production system. It helps us just as it helps any publisher, by helping us keep track of which stories have been published where and from which of our overseas sister publishers we'd do best to order specific pieces of material. I can also vouch for the alacrity of the international articles referenced, in case my voice as a domestic insider is somehow more helpful (though it shouldn't be... I'm sorry to see my colleagues having to defend themselves like this). Ramapith (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep sufficient sources for notability.DGG (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for the reasons I gave in the discussion above. (Stefan2 (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC))
  • Keep The list of sources and references is there to prove it, european languages or not. --Oledamse (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying yea or nay, just commenting on the nominator's points. Violates numerous Disney copyrights? To my knowledge, not in any more substantial way than Wikipedia "violates" copyrights through bajillion Fair Use images. Most of the stuff in INDUCKS is low-res scans of covers, title pages and single panels. Plus, it's not like Disney would have shut them down over their long operation. On the contrary, I even spotted a link to INDUCKS in one of the most respected publications in Finland =) (would probably qualify as a trivial mention though). WP:EL probably has to be clarified; if we only allow "licensed" content and not Fair Use, we'll need to brutally delete a whole lot more of links. A lot more. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some notes on copyrights

The images shown on Inducks pages may very well be considered fair use. If not, consider this:

  • WP:C#Linking to copyrighted works states that there shouldn't be any links to sites holding material violating copyrights. However, Inducks doesn't contain any images that might violate any copyrights. Instead, these images are part of Outducks (a separate project, not part of Inducks). There was a discussion about this at Talk:The Pirate Bay#Removing links to The Pirate Bay, and the conclusion seemed to be that it was possible to link to The Pirate Bay from the article about that site, since the site didn't host any material violating copyrights (it just links to such material).
  • If linking to Inducks isn't possible, then just remove the links. The information about the site could still be shown there.

Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete as original research. KrakatoaKatie 23:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aku Soku Zan

I don't get the point of this article. It talks about the concept but provides no sources (other than the cultural references trivia) and no literature that discusses this. It seems to be Wikipedia:Original research. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not original research, but I don't really think it's notable enough for its own article. Joe routt (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 'K this is a pretty darned obvious merge per the guidelines of WP:FICT into Saitō Hajime (Rurouni Kenshin). Has not, that I can tell, acheived independent notablity, but does demostrate that the character has, in its way. Most of the first section already is duplication so doesn't need to go, while the cultural references belongs in the Character reception. This was a suimmary style split from the character that was never warrented. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fairly unnecessary & described more succinctly on the character's own page. Merge the relevant bits and a-go. Papacha (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to changes and references added since beginning of AfD. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Workforce Strategy Center

Workforce Strategy Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Seems to be mostly advertising, but there does seem to be an assertion of notability. Delete uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:SPAM. Reads very much like a company trying to increase their hits online, therefore making wikipedia their inroad to notability. To prove it, a google "news" search reveals exactly zero results for this organization. If they were notable, wouldnt' somebody write about them independently? Keeper | 76 21:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I hope you will consider the comments my colleague and I have made in Talk:Workforce Strategy Center in support of the Workforce Strategy Center article. Thank you. Jalssid (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertisig. Marlith T/C 02:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This seems to be a notable entity per WP:CORP, being covered to some extent in various significant publications. The problem is not with the entity but with the writing, which sounded too much like a press release; I have edited it somewhat to correct this. Herostratus (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J-ſtanContribsUser page 22:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Herostratus (and anyone else), do you have any links that you could provide that show coverage in various significant publications? I wasn't able to find any. Keeper | 76 22:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep notwithstanding my deletionist tendencies it does seem to be well enough sourced (now - the article has been improved very recently) to show a degree of Wiki-notabilty. Springnuts (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. First, thank you all for your comments and for your help with the article. As you can probably tell, we are new to this. In addition to the current links in the article, Workforce Strategy Center has received coverage from major publications that either charge a fee for access to their archives or (so far as we can tell) no longer have their articles available online. For example, we have been written up a number of times in The Chronicle of Higher Education which charges for access to their archived stories. Is there a way stories such as the ones in The Chronicle might be referenced in the article? I would be happy to provide citations. Thanks. Jalssid (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It is absolutely OK to use Chronicle of Higher Education and other paid sources for references. External links must be available without charge, but not references--they can come from any published source, print or online, paid access or free access, English on non-english, as long as they are available in some way to the public.CHE is available in thousands of libraries. and many people here (including me) can provide copies of individual online articles to individuals use in writing or verifying an article. Once you have, them, you can include a short quote from them of a sentence or so to demonstrate the notability of make a point in the article. You presumably have an archive of where stories on you have appeared. Just use them. DGG (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eloptic energy

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

Simply non-notable. One patent and no outside recogntion. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete No sources at all? Shame. Its a good name. Delete at this time. Lawrence Cohen 00:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • delete Practically nonsense. DGG (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 21:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lachlan Ruffy

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

A non-notable actor and singer who does not meet WP:BIO. The article is self-promotional in tone and includes leading roles such as "Father Bear" in Goldilocks. There are some sources provided but given the tone of the article I am loathe to take them on entirely face value Mattinbgn\talk 21:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete - fails WP:CORP with no reliable sources. KrakatoaKatie 00:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Safari Cruises

American Safari Cruises (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Clearly an advertisement with no notability established and a conflict of interest from the original editor (name same as article). This was originally up for speedy which was semi-contested by another editor and I prodded it. I then took the prod tag off on my own because while no one had removed it, the editor continued adding the {{holdon}} tag which indicated to me that they wished to contest it and just misunderstood the nature of the new tag Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 21:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. I was the editor that removed the speedy (to give this one time despite the obvious conflict of interest issues with the article's creator). I've been searching for independent, reliable resources to keep this article and cannot find any. The resource quoted in the article is from Cruisecritic.com, and reads in a very promotional nature, or in other words, not reliable. I've done other google news searches to see if they've been written about. Back in 2006, they were briefly mentioned (as a quote in an article about cruising in general) in a St. Petersburg Times article. Other than that, this article's main contributor appears to be attempting to increase the web hits for the organization. The guideline against that is called WP:SPAM. Keeper | 76 22:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom--IslaamMaged126 (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Toddst1 (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - at the moment it's just an advert. Deb (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is definitely not in any kind of good shape as it is. With a lot of rewriting and work, it may no longer be an advertisement and might have notability. But someone needs to step up and do some major revision for this article to be considered for keeping. I won't mark delete, because of the chance someone might just come along and fix this article. Redphoenix526 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment Why not you? You're the only one (so far) that feels this is worth fixing, so fix it. Keeper | 76 16:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment I would contend that there is simply nothing here worth keeping. Even if the article is shifted so it is not spam anymore, the notability of the company is so hopelessly weak. There are only maybe three things that could be considered mentions in outside sources, and they all suffer major reliability issues, a review and a passing mention if memory serves me correctly. Reviews aren't notable. Even the NY times reviews books that wind up sucking, and unless they suck so bad that they become notable for it, the review doesn't justify its mention here, and this source isn't a percent as noteworthy as the NY times. Also, a passing mention in a news post about something else is hardly notable. Guess what, I was in a news broadcast too because the TV station did an article on the asston of snow we got last year. Doesn't mean jack about me.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 16:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The band fails WP:MUSIC, because the requirement is not being signed to a well-known indie label – it's release of two or more albums on a well-known indie label. KrakatoaKatie 00:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scylus Creed

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

Contested prod. Procedural nomination, no opinion. AecisBrievenbus 21:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia's Music Guidelines the band must be signed to a well known indie, Metaledge Records has Lionsheart on their label who has Steve Grimmett who was the lead singer of multiplatinum group Grim Reaper. Lionsheart has equally had success and multiplatinum statusMetaledgeinc06 (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No albums yet, most google hits seem to be self promotion. Six degrees of separation to a notable band is insufficient. Pburka (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Great Jedi Purge

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

This article is just a massive repetition of the plot of Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, which is featured and does need any of this, and this fictional event has established no notability outside of the movie. As such, it just repeats the plot of the movie in an in-universe way, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It has also been three years since its last AFD, and there is still no assertion of any notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Time for a great Jedi purge of our own? --Paularblaster (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep If you read the article you see it has an extensive section on the Star Wars Expanded Universe that is outside of the Episode III story line. Does the article need work? Yes. Does it need to be deleted, NO. LessThanClippers (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Does it need to assert notability? Yes. Has it? No. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Is that cause for clean-up? Yes. Is AfD clean-up? No. Masterzora (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason for cleanup, because if there is no notability, there nothing to "cleanup", as the article is unable to improve in a significent way, so the path is toward deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Assertion of notability != notability. If your problem is that you believe it's non-notable, don't state that the problem is a lack of assertion of notability. -- Masterzora (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Why would this article be kept? It is just a massive expansion on a small part of the movie article, which covers this extremely well in a very brief way. And if there are references, please demonstrate some, as this has been here for a while without any, and to tag in and wait when there is no reason to believe any are about to show up would be pointless. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
See my previous comments. This isn't just the MOVIE. It relates to the expanded universe, and the deaths/purge that occured in the books, etc. That is a notable difference, the addition of many Jedi not otherwise mentioned in the movie. To people interested in teh Stare Wars Universe, the larger Jedi Purge is certainly notable.LessThanClippers (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the extended universe aspect is notable at all, we need references to demonstrate it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not disagreeing with you on the need for citation. I am only disagreeing with you on its notability.LessThanClippers (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It is the responsability of those who would keep the article to justify, at least with one, hopefully multiple sources in order to satisfy notability. You could even promise that you have information establishing its notability, and if you needed time to get it, it would be given to you. But just saying "it's notable" in this case isn't enough. Find a few references and I will withdraw the AFD, but if you can't, you should agree with me that it isn't notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
References can be added anytime. Wikipedia isn't on a deadline. Rray (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
And if you cant establish it has any by the time this AFD is over, it should be deleted as there is no evidence it is notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Time will tell. The consensus was keep for the last AfD, so it might swing that way this time too. Rray (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
But why? There has been no improvement, there are no references, it's just a massive inflation of one incident from the movie, and the Featured article on the film already covers it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Repeating that it's just an incident from one movie over and over again won't make that suddenly true. It's also covered relevant to multiple expanded universe topics. Rray (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, I agree that the article needs some major work, but it is important outside of the Episode III. Think about episodes IV-VI. If Palpatine had never issued the order to wipe out the Jedi, hundreds more Jedi could have fought the Sith, the Rebellion would have gained more support, and their ranks would have swelled dramatically. Luke wouldn't be the sole Jedi fighting both Sith lords (Obi-Wan and Yoda didn't do much in terms of actual fighting), and he would've received better training. They would have also exposed Palpatine to the Senate, and many delegates would not have blindly supported his push to create an Empire. Now think about the Expanded Universe. Once again, Luke would've had more support, and he wouldn't have needed to completely rebuild the Jedi Order. Because he did have to rebuild, many of the policies of the Old Republic Jedi were changed; marriage, for example. Also, Jacen wouldn't have watched Anakin slaughter the Jedi, including the younglings, and that might have influenced his decision to become Darth Caedus. There are more ramifications of the Great Purge that prove its notability, but frankly, I'm running out of room, and I would like to find some references if I can. Grey Maiden talk 02:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, this does not establish notability through reliable sourcing, and does not justify a huge article on a 2 minute segment in the 6th Star Wars movie. And as the Expanded Universe information also has made no assertion of notability, why would we include it? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The same deletion argument does not necessarily apply to all articles on the subject. Some of the ones nominated in this group are trivial enough to be merged, or contain excessive detail for an general encyclopedia, and I've !voted merge or delete for them, as individually appropriate after carefully examining the article. The careless practice of indiscriminate nominations wastes the time of us all--the important articles should stay, and the merging of the others does not require AfD. DGG (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
and this is a perfect example of an article that should be deleted, as this information is already covered in a featured article in one to two sentences, so why would we massively balloon that plot section of the film article when it was featured in its trimmed and well written current form? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Because, while the event itself only lasted four minutes onscreen, the effects of the Purge spread throughout the galaxy and had major impacts on the galaxy for the next sixty or so years. The events leading up to, and the reprecussios of, Order 66 are far too important to summarize in "one or two sentences," as you called it. Grey Maiden talk 23:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 – meets notability requirements as subject of a short documentary film (which is listed at IMDB as the winner of an award from a small film festival, for what that's worth) and an Esquire article. - KrakatoaKatie 01:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ruth Adams and the World's Most Dangerous Polka Band

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Ruth Adams and the World's Most Dangerous Polka Band
Ruth Adams and the World's Most Dangerous Polka Band (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy delete and contested. Dispute as to whether current article meets WP:Band. --VS talk 21:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The award-winning short film about the band is sufficient as a third-party reference to establish notability. "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." --Eastmain (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - in addition tob the film, they have press coverage about them like this Minnesota Daily article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment - oops. That's a university newspaper which isn't regarded as a reliable source. The other ones are from the Star Tribune which is a reliable source but the articles are behind pay walls. But still a keep for me based on the Start tribune and other perss. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Why is a university newspaper any less reliable than a regular daily? I've worked for both, and in my experience, the production values and the care with which the paper was created was MUCH superior at the university paper. Applejuicefool (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The notability establishment is shaky at best. I don't see "multiple non-trivial published works" that qualify as reliable. Just that supposed film. Besides, none of this supposed notability is actually established in the article. The only actual article material I see that might even qualify as claiming notability is the notice of inclusion in a show that failed faster than most people blink. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 14:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment - FYI, Let's Bowl lasted for 2 seasons on CC, a season more than Freak Squad, Wanda Does It, I'm With Busey, Kid Notorious, etc. And why do you say "supposed" film? The film exists, is available for purchase, and has won awards at film festivals. Dislike the entry all you want, but don't try to discount reliable sources by making them sound as if they are not so. -206.188.172.30 (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. An appearance on Comedy Central is definitely notable. Applejuicefool (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is slight with only two opinions. It would improve the article if some of the info Lquilter found could be incorporated. I'll try to add one or two sources. Pigman☿ 05:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ASPIRA

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

While no doubt a very noble organization, the article claims notability (sortof) but doesn't establish it with any sources. If adequate sourcing that proves notability can be provided I will withdraw nomination. Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colin Delaney

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

Non-notable wrestler. He worked as a "jobber" (a person that loses to the known people) for a few ECW television shows for World Wrestling Entertainment, and that's it. He has no contract with the company, and it's wrong to just crystal ball he will be getting one. Many people over the years have had his role, and a good percent aren't notable. There is no proof Colin is notable at this time. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete- per above, and the fact that WWE does not acknowledge the man with his own profile and he has no real role in WWE or previous background information. Striking out deletion vote same as per <sSuriel.--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

*Strong Delete- If Ranjin Singh, who has been with the WWE for a while now, is not notable for an article yet, why would a jobber, who has been with the WWE for three weeks, be notable for an article? iMatthew (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep- per the discussion on the WP:PW talk page. iMatthew 20:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

*Delete per nom. Keep per discussion at WT:PW. Ohmpandya (Talk) 02:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Keep - I'm working on it. D.M.N. (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Keep per discussion at WT:PW. Cheers, LAX 18:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

*Delete as fails WP:BIO notability criteria. Withdrawing delete as article currently under work. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 10:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep article is currently under work. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article needs time to develop. Deleting this article would be like demolishing a planned building while in the middle of construction. Just be patient. This article will be expanded as times passes by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.176.55 (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm on the fence on this one. I see both sides of the argument and both are valid. I think this should be marked "No Consensus" because we can't keep this AfD open indefinitely just to wait and see what happens on ECW. GetDumb 21:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 300 Kanji with 10000 words

300 Kanji with 10000 words (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. NN per WP:BK. Article fails to even mention the author. EndlessDan 20:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

delete. Sounds a very handy thing, but not a notable one. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google returns only 20 results. Weak article in wiki, weak resources in google (I don't found official website of this book). Zerokitsune (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 by Hiberniantears. Non-admin closure. Tevildo (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vin_DiCarlo

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Vin DiCarlo Articles for deletion/Vin DiCarlo (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Vin DiCarlo (3rd nomination)
Vin_DiCarlo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This "article" is completely self-referential, and reads as one very large advertisement for this corporation. There are also many extremely unsubstantiated claims. Shouldn't such grandiose claims be backed up with reliable sources? And the article is poorly written and not in any way "encyclopedic". Shouldn't the articles on Wikipedia at least appear to be unbiased and objective? RuebenStoker (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of Jamaican athletics

History of Jamaican athletics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

All of this can be put in the main Jamaica article. This one reeks of WP:NPOV violations. Nakon 19:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep and Rename - Rename the article to Sports in Jamaica (Athletics in Jamaica per later suggestion) and then edit out some of the bias problems. The subject matter is notable. matt91486 (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It shouldn't be renamed 'sport in Jamaica as this article is specifically about track and field. 'Sport in Jamacia' would encompass a lot of cricket for instance, and there's already plenty of material on that elsewhere. Jamaica is incredibly successful in Athletics, given its small size, and there's more than enough information to justify this piece. If this needs rewriting a little then edit it. Nick mallory (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep unless a copyvio, as a not-badly written overview, but it should actually be named athletics in Jamaica. Punkmorten (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but re-write in a less-hurried style, and rename as per User:Punkmorten. - fchd (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per all above comments. Also just wanted to bring up that this article is move protected and will require an admin to carry out the move (I closed as keep and rename earlier to find this out.) TonyBallioni (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DOSF

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

Delete not all software is notable and this apparently only ran on one type of computer. No sources to boot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - can't seem to find much on it. Doesn't seem to be any hope in expanding it. GtstrickyTalk or C 19:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete as per above. (consider this a db-author tag if you like - the other changes were one cat refinement and the delete tag) (John User:Jwy talk) 22:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pentalogy

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

This is a piece of original research about an obscure neology/ nonce word formed on a predictable numeric system with no obvious authority in published material. It contains a dictionary definition and a list compiled by original research. It apparently means "five of something" by analogy with "trilogy" but, just like the deleted article on heptalogy, (see here) the term has never been applied to any of the "pentalogies" named. Lo2u (T • C) 19:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. WP:CBALL does not apply, since that policy is meant to prevent speculation. As for this term never having been applied, it actually has been used to describe the five Omen movies, for example. Or to name what the "Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy" became after "book five in the trilogy of four". So to me, it makes sense to have that article. Tierlieb (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • On the first point, see point two of WP:CBALL: "Similarly, articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system... are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use." On the second point, the fact that there exist books and films that have had four sequels is not relevant. An example of how a word might be used isn't a citation. It's a bit like defending the made up word beeophobia on the grounds that lots of people are scared of bees. Yes it's been used on the internet to describe "Omen" - but the word is basically marginal. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and not every made up compound ("tricentenary", for example, for which there is far more precedent) deserves an article.--Lo2u (T • C) 21:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, on the subject of Omen, it seems "pentology" (rather than the correct "pentalogy") is a word made up specifically to describe the Omen series, much like "Quadrilogy" (rather than tetralogy) was invented to describe Alien. --Lo2u (T • C) 22:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It doesn't appear this term is actually used anywhere reliable or to refer to any of the listed examples. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. JJL (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Mh29255 (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn, recreation of deleted material. Redfarmer (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Christian rock bands

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

List which could become infinitely long. Much better as a category. WP:NOT#INFO Redfarmer (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OSAA Speech

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

Non notable article that has had the notability templates constantly removed with out the issue being fixed. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - per WP:NOTE, this is not notable as there are zero WP:RS (blogs do not count) demonstrating the notability of the organization. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion of notability and very little actual content. Katr67 (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Katr: no assertion of notability, nor any sources to suggest that topic is notable. -Pete (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, leaning toward keep; kept by default. --MCB (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Booty call (slang)

Booty call (slang) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary - and that is policy (as part of WP:NOT) as opposed to a guideline. Yes, it's a fairly well-known term, but I don't believe it merits a seperate article from casual sex - it should probably be redirected and/or merged into that, given that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this is unreferenced original research expansion on a dicdef. Feel free to suggest why this should be kept, though - I just can't see any value in it at the moment. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

For comparison, "MILF" is a well known term and it doesn't have an article - because it's a dictionary definition and belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per 2nd suggestion of nom. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I have added a cite. The article is more than a definition as it describes a type of relationship. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, the nomination is proposing merge/redirect which is Keep rather than Delete. Nominator could withdraw and do it himself. Colonel Warden (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I honestly think that it needs more than just one reference to justify inclusion. One reference from a comedian does not demonstrate notability in any way (I really don't think that everything that Ross Noble has discussed at his comedy shows warrants a Wikipedia article at all). Right now this still stands as a poor article, dictionary definition, failing WP:NOT. But still, if you can expand this without violating WP:NOR I might change my mind on this one.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep enough there to justify keeping it. JJL (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary of every slang term. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted. G1, A1 and A7. DrKiernan (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Umayakkal Nachiyar

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

I originally prodded this with "Minimal context essay. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to publish stories and opinions." The author then replaced my prod reason with "very important article on life in Ramnad which is rarely represented in the Net." which I counted as removing the prod, so I bring the article here. Seems to be an essay, doesn't seem to have much to do with the subject, and seems to be mostly original research. If an article can be written on the subject, we may as well delete this and start over. J Milburn (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - sounds like a folk tale. No indication that it exists in verifiable print. Non-notable. SWik78 (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Milburn

This is an essay narrated through the experiences of a person in that time period and region.The word 'story' is used in the interchangeable way it is being used by writers,news reports are also called as stories, a generic term for all writing.It is in this paricular narrative style for easy readabilty,like giving an example to an abstract theory or principle.without this example it will be very dry and may not create the interest to read.It can be categorised as life in rural india,life in Ramnad,early 20th century Ramnad and so on. Plantgrowreap (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Perhaps categorising appropriately will be sufficient,and suggestions towards this is welcome.I have categories like the above in mind and I am not familiar so far with the categorising process. In summary,this is an illustration of the Life in Ramnad,Rural South India in early 20th century.The agriculture,education,attributes of the people,economic situations and the general struggle of the people has been illustrated. Plantgrowreap (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - unsourced, an essay or original research, not what an encyclopedia is for. JohnCD (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I can't decide if the subject is notable or not based on the style. If it's workable content, it really does need a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic. matt91486 (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • KeepUnfortunately,there is no research done on certain parts of the world and the writing itself strats now only.Writing and preserving histories and traditions are not prevalent in all parts of the world.

In india there is an annual festival in which all the records are burntor floated in the rivers.Is there an article about it in wikipedia? Do you want to make Wikipedia as Europedia or still you do not want to know anything about the world outside of your conscience.

Everything has to be written once originally.

writing itself starts now only, to print articles on subjects that cover Ramnad and the peoples' lives there,now we have to start a free printopedia,why to go back in technology

replies given in the beginning of the article itself about notability and suitabilty,it is obvious proof that comments are being made without reading the article

Mr.Millburn who wrote the 'delete'prod did that in a millisecond of posting the article,keep that in consideration

Before posting any further comment,you are encouraged to read the article and the discussion,editors are supposed to read,that is their primary qualification,not having an automatic software which alerts and you respond like a test of reflex in a millisecond,

Plantgrowreap (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, everything does have to be written about once originally, but Wikipedia is not the place for that. No matter the other flaws or benefits of the article, Wikipedia can not have an entire article based on original research. Instead, articles must be based on reliable sources, and be written from the neutral point of view. Yes, I admit this article has not been around long, but you are the one talking of responsibility- it is the responsibility of the author to write an article that meets our content inclusion guidelines. This one does not. I am giving the article a chance- I could have very easily deleted it within seconds of you posting it- perhaps as having no context, or perhaps simply as being non notable. However, I didn't, I am giving you a chance to improve the article or convince us that it should be kept, and all you have done so far is admit that no reliable sources exist, that this article is written as an essay and is based entirely upon original research. J Milburn (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK,Mr.Millburn,I accept the above guidelines in toto and I am working on improving the article,by modifications and citation of sources for the various statements made in the artcle.Thank you for the firm stand taken with a view to maintain the standards. Plantgrowreap (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Edited:References of reliable sources for statements on the background scenario of the article relating to agriculture, irrigation and ouptput of cultivation to build the hardy environment of the article given Plantgrowreap (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Edited Plantgrowreap (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC) References to Hegel's Philosophy of history and the Original History school,sources for the statements in the Introduction and for the Theme of the article, cited.

Edited Plantgrowreap (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Reference for the educational services provided by the Missionaries cited

  • Delete - what is this actually about? It's still a rambling essay -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Plantgrowreap (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)what is this actually about,well whpq for that you have to read the article and discussion,editing and voting is 99.9999%reading and without reading and witout pausing to give constructive suggestions,in a huff you ask what is this and vote to delete.People like you who vote like this should be disqualified ,when one cannot read anything what he can write.reading needs discipline to invest time,off the cuff remarks need nothing ,reading of thousand pages inspires to write one page,writers can very well modify their writing but those who cannot even read cannot ever think of writing,one thing i am becoming very sure,that is wikipedia should allow only those who make 'informed comments' as a proof of their being readers and that they have read the article on which they comment to have got anything to do with voting,writing should not be considered as cheap and wayward voting should not be considered as sacred.Again i encourage visitors of wikipedia to be readers first Plantgrowreap (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Keep those who comment here with the spirit of collaboration and good faith need not be offended,you know what i mean,it is our responsibilty to keep away people who do not even contribute reading time,only collaborative editing and improvement votaries are expected to be voters here,that much i am sure about wikipedia


Plantgrowreap (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC) one man's idea of notability is many men's idea of notoriety those who comment here with the spirit of collaboration and good faith need not be offended,you know what i mean,it is our responsibilty to keep away people who do not even contribute reading time,only collaborative editing and improvement votaries are expected to be voters here,that much i am sure about wikipedia invoking notability etc is very debatable issue and particularly when someone from another continent and another culture comments about notability etc,he should consider his own knowledge of countries and people,except Gandhi how many notables they have knowledge of,Hilary doubted that Gandhi might be thought of as petrol bunk attendant by the american students,well,she should know the general awareness of her public and it showed,before commenting,ensure that you are doing so with humility and with knowledge of their own profound limitations, Plantgrowreap (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)those who comment here with the spirit of collaboration and good faith need not be offended,you know what i mean,it is our responsibilty to keep away people who do not even contribute reading time,only collaborative editing and improvement votaries are expected to be voters here,that much i am sure about wikipedia Plantgrowreap (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Keep..it is posted just now and further editing is absolutely possible,what makes you to hurry,

Comment - Well, you have assumed that I did not read it. I can tell it is a rambling essay because by trying to read it, I cannot make any sense of it. Not at all. It might be about some woman named Umayakkal, but as I said in my first comment, the text is rambling and there is not any clear statement about what the article topic is. -- Whpq (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. As much as I hate to delete majority world topics, this has to go. It isn't an article but an essay, and an appalingly written one at that. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Plantgrowreap (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC) to  mostly harmless,but harmful nevertheless


I'm patrolling deletions against systematic bias did you mean i'm patrolling against deletions made due to systematic bias

but harmful nevertheless

The consensus is reached not by numerical votes but bystrength of reasons

Wikipedia says that of the '2 million articles only one thousand are featurableothers are all written by non-encylo contributors and pros collaboration comes exactly here only,

then according to the way of harmsall the two million articles have to be deleted,i insist you people to read around wikipedia for a change


The reasons,let me add one more:Notability is not a CONSENSUS in wikipedia policy,and notbility guidelines are not policy as of now,

right now notability is given absurd interpretations by some people,gangsters,criminals being sensationalised and puppet-rock stars being promoted by conventional corporate media are only notable as per their undersatnding,despite them being notorious

notoriety is not notability,wikipedia stands against all that commercial corporate conventional conspiratory media stands for.

why harms are coming in the way of wikipedia

i repeat'those who comment here with the spirit of collaboration and good faith need not be offended,you know what i mean,it is our responsibilty to keep away people who do not even contribute reading time,

only collaborative editing and improvement votaries are expected to be voters here,that much i am sure about wikipedia

  • You're over reacting here, please assume good faith. Many people who have commented here are experienced contributors- not that it matters, their arguments are sound. Ironically, your arguments are as long and as rambling as your essay, and so aren't the most sound in the world... J Milburn (talk) 09:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Plantgrowreap (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Plantgrowreap (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Mr.millburn you have not replied to my comment that you have nominated my article for deletion within seconds

you have not paused to suggest other options

you focussed the attention of the vistors to deletion

and you are not giving reasoning,read my comments,have you repied to any of them,your misunderstanding of wikipedia policies,and everything about wikipedia

That you have won stars for proposing deletions

that YOU have a strong faith in crime as a basis for greatness

don't call any article as rambling, i call you reading handicapped

i am under no obligation to write crime comics for kids

you nominated in a tearing hurry

your idea on notability is just crimes and rock bands,

read my comments on this and reply,REPLY,these are all very substantial issues threatenung the environment of wikipedia

first you evaluate yourself for attitude before doing anything further with wikipedia

your being an administrator well,to use your own language,I can do this or that,i am giving you chance etc,shows that you are not into wikipedia philosophy or thinking at all

can you tell me whether we can discuss your user behavior,discussing my article or whatever with you needs evaluation you first you do not read,you nominate for deletions recklessly,you have no idea what wikipedia is all about

and you are admonishing,threatening and doing all sorts of funny things like kids do for practical joking

i accuse you to be a vandal in disguise,after proper process you are a candidate for 'rapid deletion' from wikipedia user group i have seen the subjects of your interest,deletion is one of your taunts,you disturb people here

none of my reactions are over-reactions

you refuse to see yourself,accept your vandalistic behavior and you do not believe you need reform

have you got the matter in you to react like a writer,

no more notabilty points,

i accuse you to be a vandal,i know my article needs improvements but wikipedia DOES NOT have any need for YOU

All are my accusations which in good faith i am communicating to you before taking up with user behaviour forum

do not take it personally

you call my comments rambling,i call you are reading handicapped,

you lack the discipline to read serious material,you can read 'serial murder stories,

you are against my posting because it is against your faith in crime just read and reply

you are being given an insight into yourself

you assume authority to judge and condemn others

before doing anything about wikipedia you write what is your understanding about the philosophy of wikipedia,this is no web video game, i told you,you are commenting about inane unagreed details,counting the leaves,while forgetting the forest,the reason for existence of Wikipedia you have lost sight of

you read this in good faith,i assume it, and react,

you have spoken about authoritarianism and practicing it here

Before making any comments about my reaction and my article,you reply to my observations on your behaviour,i am just being frank and helpful on a level you would benefit

this is what is important here

be a good boy and benefit from feedback,

I do not appreciate your patronising tone and your unfounded accusations. I have requested that another admin look into your behaviour, as no doubt you are simply going to disregard anything I say. J Milburn (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deletion under CSD G7 by Hbdragon88. Non-admin closure. --Goobergunch|? 11:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 Criticism

Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 Criticism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article was originally created as a separation from Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008, but was merged back with a consensus of editors. The article was PROD'd, but that was removed. There's not enough here for the article to stand on its own, and separating out criticism sections is just awkward. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not enough content, and it may be construed as a POV fork. Terjen (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete --- disputed branch, duplicated content, orphaned article. This article is an artifact of a content dispute. --- tqbf 18:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep--Duchamps_comb MFA 20:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment This isn't a vote. You must provide a reason as to why this should be kept. --RucasHost (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This was to be a Redirect.--Duchamps_comb MFA 18:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's not a practical redirect. No one is going to search for "Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 criticism". It doesn't meet the criteria for redirects under typos or misnomers. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment --- Duchamps, if you don't mean for this to be an article, can you say so so we can close this AfD up quickly? I don't think any of us meant to go through the whole process for this page. If consensus on talk says we split out criticisms, we'll do it, otherwise I think we're all happy not to. --- tqbf 18:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment an AfD is fine with me, we'll make it an article.--Duchamps_comb MFA 18:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an obvious POV fork. --Elonka 19:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fits fine on original page, no reason to have this duplicate. Could be construed as POV fork, per above. Fin©™ 19:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, per all above. Merge to main article. Arny (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment --- sigh once again, Duchamps is canvassing. --- tqbf 20:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I warned him about it before, but he seems to have ignored that. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge If Paul's campaign developments, appearances, and debate performances were deemed unworthy of having their own articles, this certainly doesn't merit one either. Buspar (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    Note that this content has already been "merged", and virtually all editing of the underlying content continues on the main page and not Duchamps fork. It's really pretty annoying that Duchamps didn't simply concede the PROD. 21:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tqbf (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - strong POV fork, grossly inappropriate, leaves undue weight on worshipful coverage of Paul minutia with criticism tucked away out of sight. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Obvious POV fork. --RucasHost (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Admin, close this AfD. It was really meant to be a redirect, not a page. I think wp:snow would be OK with me.--Duchamps_comb MFA 01:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks! --- tqbf 01:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article was deleted as a CSD. So... I guess this should be closed. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gammaverse

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

Very in-universe article on a minor fictional location. I can see no third party coverage or real-world significance. I am also nominating Alphaverse, which is basically the same article, but on a different location in the sci-fi Charlie Jade. Seems to be a fairly notable show, so I can hypothetically see articles about locations/items/characters within it, but I am not sure these are it. J Milburn (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Google doesn't return any reliable, secondary sources, so it's unlikely this article can ever pass WP:FICT. The entire thing fails WP:NOT#PLOT anyway. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above arguments.TheRingess (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of James Bond video game locations

List of James Bond video game locations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a game guide and not an indiscriminate collection of information. Contested prod. Pagrashtak 17:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 20:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marko Mitrović

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

15 aged player, at least 2 years and 6 months short for a professional contract and 6 months short for international transfer. Matthew_hk tc 17:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk tc 17:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO as he has not played in a fully-professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. No reason for WP to aid in aggrandizing this talent - the next Zlatan? Probably another hype that doesn't come true, such as Bojan Djordjic or Labinot Harbuzi. Punkmorten (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Number 57. Struway2 (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as not having played professionally and doesn't even have a squad number. The report of interest by Chelsea is not enough - very many youth players are signed by the big clubs on a 'just in case' basis and not all of them make it. Come back when he gets on the pitch. BlueValour (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete to purge edit history, and then redirect to King of Mann#Pretender. DS (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Howe (claimant to King of Mann)

CarbonLifeForm (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC) (categories)

  • Delete. Grounds: WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:NN, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:BLP. Also listed at Requests for arbitration. Suggest his pretentious coat of arms also be deleted. - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, or Redirect to King of Mann#Pretender, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Articles about people notable only for one event. DrKiernan (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Grounds: WP:NN policies are fairly specific that if an individual is only notable for a single event, the focus should be on that event (e.g., the claim, itself) rather than on an otherwise un-notable person. As it relates to WP guidelines, a person is generally notable if a) the person has received significant recognized awards or honors, or b) the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Further, when a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted. And consistent with the notability guidelines, from BLP, if reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy, which I believe is the case with this article. In summary, WP policies are to cover the event, not the person. So, given all of this, I fail to see how Howe has achieved any notability other than through this singular claim, and the recent (and relatively minor) coverage of it. I don't think a prudent person would believe that an individual who claims to be a descendant of ancient royalty (an, as yet, unverified and unrecognized claim) "constitutes a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record." As can be seen from the compendium of press coverage at the article's talk page, there is really not that much press about this, and certainly not enough to date to be part of any enduring historical record. I support deletion unless I am persuaded that Howe has achieved notability in another way. Newguy34 (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[6] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[7] and independent of the subject.[8]. The depth of coverage here is substantial--Hu12 (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to King of Mann#Pretender, and watch to make sure that doesn't get filled with the amount of detail in this article. I don't think his wishes are at all relevant here. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NN. no particular opinion about the redirect other than it might help prevent re-creation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

*Keep This BLP was created by admin Hu12 on December 18, 2007. I'll let him comment himself, but obviously including this BLP falls well within Wikipedia standards, see WP:BIO. Noting WP:BIO, the coverage of his claim meets the basic criteria and has had substantial coverage far beyond anything that could remotely be considered trivial. He has been the target of some culturally biased news coverage in the Isle of Man and England, (United States news coverage has been less bias), but citing WP:BIO just because the subject may lack popularity it does not make him less notable and is not a reason to delete the BLP. If it were or if being notable for just his status as a pretender is grounds for deleting this bio then we will have our hands full with all the other biographies of pretenders, many of whom haven't had nearly the same amount of news coverage.--Lazydown (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC) This user has been banned as a sockpuppet of David Howe. :Late Addition Relating to pretenders in general, I notice that two BLP's for French pretenders list between them a total of FIVE sources combined. I added this because one of the other arguments, further down the page, for deleting this BLP has been not enough third-party sources, of which I think there are at least 15 currently available since October 2007.--Lazydown (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC) :Attention needed One or more editors discussing this issue are party to a dispute with the subject of this BLP currently being reviewed by the arbitration committee. They have had a substantial history of editing this BLP. They are now giving their recommendation only after having been named in the dispute.--Lazydown (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not true, and, what's your point? You, too, have had a substantial history of editing the same BLP. That is precisely why we have been asked to comment on this AfD. That the subject of the article has requested the arbitration (which has not yet been accepted by ArbCom) to which we are parties has no impact on this proposed action. Contrary to your assertion, I asked for this AfD before the RfAR, as is evidenced by the time stamps on the article's talk page. Newguy34 (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yes, there are lots of "references", the kind that would be great for a scrapbook, but this is an encyclopedia, not a press clippings service. WP:BLP1E for sure, and the 1E is not worthy of inclusion as shown by the impressive and convincing WP:OR that went into disproving the claims. Had anyone card, even just a little, some newspaper or magazine would have done a solid rebuttal piece that could be quoted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:Rebuttal If a person is crowned a King, albeit in exile, regardless of who agrees or disagrees, and the event is given substantial news coverage as in this case, you are saying that the event isn't significant for inclusion as a stand alone BLP, interesting. Also that Original Research project was blacklisted by Wikipedia for several reasons, none of which cited it's "impressiveness." Not everyone is convinced. It also, humorously I might add, says Howe hasn't proved his pedigree but then proceeds to prove it. It also fails to debate the merits for which his claim is based and instead argues a red-herring for which I can find no reference that the subject has ever asserted.--Lazydown (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not if that person "self-crowned" himself king. This is a red herring. He is not in exile because he has never been to the Isle of Mann, and has never been exiled. The event has not been given "substantial" news coverage, as evidenced by the compendium of a few news reports on the article's talk page. Much of the coverage has been reprint from the same source. Newguy34 (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Wrong! Unless he is an archbishop he didn't crown himself. There is at least one picture on one of the many independent news sources that shows the crowning. And, didn't you fight to have the latest, as of Monday, news piece from the Manx Examiner, that suggests that Howe has as much right to the throne as Queen Elizabeth does as the Lord of Mann, deleted out? I think that makes 5 or 6 articles about him just in the Isle of Man press since October; not to mention the 8 or 9 other pieces done on him outside of the Island. Just because you haven't included all the news sources doesn't mean there aren't plenty out there.--Lazydown (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm, that's semantics. If I hire an agent, the agent's actions are the same as mine. He had himself "crowned" (if the term suits you better) to a throne not recognized by either the Lord of Mann or by the Manx government. And, there is no way of knowing if an archbishop actually placed the crown on his head, as the photo you cite merely shows a robed arm, and he refuses to name this archbishop. And, I sought to remove an opinion column, not a "news piece", that you had selectively edited for inclusion in the article. Newguy34 (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Given that the "coronation" was a private affair only Howe, or a close associate, could have supplied the media with the picture. The archbishop is, as yet, unidentified.
Having contacted the author of the Manx Examiner article and he said the articles' main point was that he feels monarchy in itself is a bizarre concept and unsuitable to the modern world. Not exactly an endorsement of Howe's claims especially as he did apply the word delusion to it. --Heraldic 20:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NN. Redirect to King of Mann#Pretender as next option. Apart from the "claim" subject is not of note. Much of the press coverage seems to be a rehash of the original story. --Heraldic (talk) Heraldic 19:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per extensive media coverage, demonstrated by long list of references. Meets WP:BIO. WaltonOne 19:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Let the editors discuss and determine if a merge would work. this source seems to get him into WP:N [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtstricky (talk • contribs) 19:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - opinions on legitimacy and whatnot aside, he seems to have plenty of media attention to meet notability. matt91486 (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Redirect to King of Mann#Pretender for reasons cited above by same opinions. Bio fails WP:BLP1E. The quantity of news coverage is not relevant if it's all surrounding one event. Initial publicity (hometown paper) clearly originated with subject & the rest is reaction. Interesting that one editor seems to be trying to argue the claim here in Afd. 68.166.235.203 (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)— 68.166.235.203 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Agree. This page is for discussion of the merits of the AfD request, not the merits of the BLP or underlying claim. Let's all try to keep it to that? Newguy34 (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

::Disagree, as people continue to debate the claim and make false statements on this page as they are still doing. The anonymous IP user above made a false statement saying the initial publicity started with Howe's hometown newspaper. That is false. The Isle of Man newspapers began reporting the story back in October 2007. There were at least five combined radio and newspaper stories on Howe's claim prior to his hometown newspaper's story picking it up in December 2007.--Lazydown (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lazydown, you have a point (!). I now see that the 10/3/2006 Frederick newspaper article does not mention the Manx claim at all. The first dated item on the talk page is one from the Isle of Man, 10/17/2007: so a 'hometown' paper for the area which is the subject of the claim, not the claimant's hometown. But the whole article still fails WP:BLP1E. [NB I revised this paragraph.] 68.166.235.203 (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article simply doesn't have enough 'real' references besides the website of the 'King' and interviews/press coverage done (note: interviews and press are not bias-free). Certain references used was to his advantage in promoting himself the right to 'throne'. The article was also heavily involved in edit wars and really don't have much notability.--Cahk (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:Rebuttal The article has had substantial 'real' references but part of the edit war you referenced included certain editors deleting the references and disputing them because they were not 'critical enough' to fit their purposes. The major issue with the BLP continues to be the pursuit of certain editors promoting things to discredit the subject and not to provide a NPOV.--Lazydown (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lazydown, seriously please cease discussing the merits of the article here. Take it to the article's talk page and we can discuss to your heart's content. I disagree with those who have voted "keep", but have not took them to task here. Also, please cease from accusing anyone that doesn't agree with you of somehow violating NPOV. It's really getting tired. Many of us believe that you have been promoting Howe's claims too strongly in your edits, and in the process also violating NPOV. Can we have a truce on this? Will you please show good faith? Newguy34 (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with comments above in just mentioning Howe to the King of Mann page instead of creating a full fledge wiki page dedicated on him. Not only does he not have enough notability, edit wars will continue to go if this page exist and some information available is simply not reliable (ie. His Coat of Arms is simply his creation so what standing does it has in relation to being King of Mann? , did third party genealogist investigated his claim? and the fact he never even set foot in the Isle makes this article simply an advertisment for his claim to 'throne') In addition, the alleged 'coronation' was so secret and we can't even tell if the 'archbishop' was simply one that is made up by another person. --Cahk (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I would agree to an entry in the King of Mann article of appropriate weight. Newguy34 (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment The subject has asked for arbitration. If it is granted I suspect it will lead to an end to the edit wars. Simply moving it to another page will not stop that because the same users that the subject has complained about will continue to edit to their POV. For instance, on the King of Mann article, user Wjhonson (a party to Howe's request for arbitration) on January 8 removed the following from the pretender section, Currently there is no definitive proof that he either is or is not the King, however his. That is a factual statement that he removed because it left the possibility open that he could have a legitimate claim. It was a NPOV statement and there was no need to remove it. These types of edits will continue no matter where you include Howe's claim. I propose we keep his bio and it be given permanent protection with edit request being sent to admins. It will be the only way to ensure NPOV and WP:BLP concerns.

:::::::By the way, if he wasn't notable enough for his own BLP I seriously doubt there would be this much attention by media and several editors using the page as a soapbox denouncing him.--Lazydown (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge/Redirect to King of Mann#Pretender. The article is almost entirely about Howe's claim rather than Howe himself, and I would contend that is has had sufficient press coverage (across three countries) to be sufficiently notable. However, I have concerns about how the claim can be sufficiently and accurately described in the King of Mann article without unbalancing it. Failing a merger, I would say a rather weak Keep, at least to see if there are more developments. Mauls (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I would also agree to that, as I suggested days ago here. Newguy34 (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect to King of Mann#Pretender. I don't think he is notable enough to have an article as he has only one real claim to notability which could be dealt with succinctly on King of Mann without all the extraneous details about his business plans for selling titles etc.. Dabbler (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:Comment I'm sorry but what exactly is HRH Prince Charles of Wales notable for? Oh, right he's the heir to Queen Elizabeth II, and she is notable for? This whole debate is very politically charged and the fact is that all Kings and Queens are notable for really one thing and everything else that follows is as a result of their station.--Lazydown (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment But, Howe is not a king or a queen except in his own mind. His throne has not been recognized by ANYONE with an authority to do so. Newguy34 (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Addition to your addition I wasn't aware there was a governing body for claimants to a throne. Who exactly has authority over a King? ;-) He is a pretender who has received four bucket loads of attention in the media in just a few months. Far more than a mere fantasist would ever get; which is what you and few other editors maintain. He's clearly not a fantasist as there are people who take his claim seriously, some more than others. So, again, a Pretender to a throne, like any King or Queen is notable for one thing, everything else is a result of that.--Lazydown (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, then those have been pretty small buckets. Real monarchs have the legitimacy of allegiance from those over which they rule and the recognition of the validity of their claims. Howe has neither. You agree, then, that he is notable for only a single event? How, then, does he warrant a BLP? Newguy34 (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::Yes, Prince Charles is notable for one thing and everything that followed was a result of that one thing.--Lazydown (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

For the title King of Mann, there is a governing body: the monarch of the United Kingdom. --Carnildo (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. WP:WAX. Lazydown - that is not a valid argument. - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:::Comment You're right, it is hard to agree to Keep a BLP about Prince Charles because, like Howe, he is notable for one thing and because Howe also has a BLP. So, I guess I agree, we should delete Prince Charles' BLP. I'll phone Buck House and let them no of our decision.--Lazydown (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Carbon beat me to it, but just because HRH The Prince of Wales has a BLP, doesn't mean he should. We are considering this AfD, based solely on its merits and adherance to WP policies. Just as it is irrelevant how many references Anna Nichole Smith's BLP has to Ancestry.com; it still is not a WP:RS Newguy34 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting to note that HRH's (Charles, that is) BLP has detailed information about his employment, place of residence, spouses (both of them) and children. Newguy34 (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:::It does. I suspect though that Howe doesn't quite have the same resources to muster for his protection as does Chuck. Any way, Great then Newguy34 we agree, finally. As soon as we are done here we can move forward working together on deleting the BLPs for the entire British Royal Family and all other Royal and Pretender BLPs because they too are notable for only one thing. Or, perhaps we give page protection to King David's page like Prince Charles' page and we can prevent the politically charged and culturally biased edits from continuing. No matter, because I suspect it is headed that way regardless.--Lazydown (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

First, HRH's BLP is semi-protected. I'd be happy to afford the same to any BLP. I'll assume that your comments are sarcasm, so I'll try to get us back to the point at hand regarding this AfD. If I agreed to a BLP (which is highly unlikely, but I have always suggested that I could be pursuaded), it would have to be balanced and from a NPOV. Attempts to highjack this BLP by characterizing his claim in the most positive light are disturbing to me as a proud Wikipedian. His claim is littered with inconsistencies and matters that don't pass the "smell test". Howe's violent reaction, alone, should give any prudent person pause. Frankly (and with respect) your reaction also gives me pause about the validity of the claim. If something is true, it is always true and no one need proclaim it so forcefully. Newguy34 (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to King of Mann#Pretender. It's the only thing that David Howe is really notable for. --Carnildo (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to King of Mann#Pretender per previous arguments. Claim is unsubstantiated by any authoritative source and therefore remains, pro tem, nothing more than that, so it should be regarded as precisely that. Whilst historical claims to nobility are nothing new, as here, for example, until a decisive judgement is achieved, it should remain as nothing more than a mere bagatelle, serving only as an example of the self-delusion practised by some people. After all, it has always been open for the claimant to seek a declaration in the High Court of England and Wales that he is the rightful heir to this title, and I note that this has not been done. An advertisement in the London Gazette is not good enough to establish title. As for the side-issues presented here, they are amusing in their naivety, but ultimately insubstantial. Enough joke pages, please. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:What Authority? Nice, who has the authority to establish such a claim? Who sits higher than a King? No one seems to have that answer. I'm also troubled by your imposter heir example and accusing the subject of being delusional. Your insistence on taking the claim to the High Court of England and Wales seems a bit off as well. Are you a solicitor or a barrister, because if not, I don't think you should be dispensing legal advice with out a license.--Lazydown (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  • OK, I'll humour you, but only for the purposes of comedy, despite my seriously made objections: 1. The battlefield or, since 1649, when the Divine Right of Kings was forever consigned to the dustbin of history. 2. These days, as far as the UK is concerned, the democratically elected de facto government of the United Kingdom. 3. I suspect you are rather more embarrassed than troubled by my "impostor heir" example, which only illustrates the fact that there is nothing new in this type of self-aggrandising nonsense. 4. As to whether the subject is delusional, if he wants to believe something which cannot be proved even on a balance of probabilities, that is his affair; but if he wants to be taken seriously, which I sense to be the whole point of this article, that is not good enough, which brings me to 5. the High Court is amply qualified to issue a decision in matters such as this, and has done so in previous cases, for example the Ampthill Peerage Case 1977 AC 547. 6. FWIW, although I don't make a point of it here, I am a barrister and have been so since 1978, and although now semi-retired, I do not need a license to practice. Even so, perhaps I'm more used to dealing with nonsense than your average punter, so I hope you'll forgive my cynicism. Or experience, whichever you judge to be more important. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Forgive my crassness then. I just find the prospect of the High Court of England deciding in any pretender's favour against the Queen to be very unlikely, no matter how solid the foundation of the claim might be. So, the suggestion seems a bit preposterous and entirely comedic on it's own. Not to mention the fact that the High Court of England had no issue with the 1765 Act of Revestment which yanked any soverignty the Isle of Man may have had away and brought it under the British Crown. Yes, the High Court of England doesn't quite have a track record of impartiality in matters of the State.--Lazydown (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, it's unlikely, but it's all we've got. The solidity of the claim remains to be decided, but at least you appreciate the comedic potential. Politics occasionally throws up bizarre situations, but in my view an encyclopedia is not the place to resolve them. We reflect here what is, not what should be, and that is why this article, entertaining though it is, does not belong here in its current form. If circumstances change, certainly, I'm prepared to change my mind; I might even get a better one! --Rodhullandemu

(Talk) 03:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's settled then. We march on Buck House tonight and demand a recount. :-)--Lazydown (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The argument is specious because it wasn't "yanked" away. It was sold. You should re-read the history of what exactly happened, you seem a bit light on it. Wjhonson (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to King of Mann#Pretender, per Carnildo, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. Our article seems to take his claim very seriously but news coverage is limited. The biggest media mention so far seems to be the article in the Telegraph from 20 December. That article quoted a few local residents of the Isle of Man. The Frederick News-Post, for which two references are offered, is the newspaper of a city of 58,000 people. The Isle of Man Examiner continues to carry articles, most recently on January 7, but they seem to regard this as an amusing human-interest story, not a constitutional crisis. EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Major Media Coverage Dismissed? Of course there is also the meager matter of the piece about him on NBC 4 Washington, DC, a major market news station whose broadcast is seen by at least a million. Oh, and that little piece on Fox News Studio B that has several million viewers. How do you miss those when you had to pick out the articles you mentioned?--Lazydown (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Both the NBC 4 piece and the Fox News piece were also amusing human-interest stories. Hell, Shepard Smith was giggling half way through the interview. Newguy34 (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes and then he closed by saying Howe was a "Very Royal Man". I didn't here or see him laughing there. See, selective, non NPOV edits. But, I'm sure that the merge will clean all this up, (cough).--Lazydown (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
NPOV doesn't mean we don't or can't have a bias. NPOV means that the article is fair and balanced. Not too pro Howe and not too negative. Believe me, left to my own devices, I could make the article very negative, but that wouldn't be right or in Wikipedia's spirit. But, let's not try to fool ourselves, we are not jurists and there is no need for us to be neutral in everything we say and do. I think the claim is bunk, but I can (and have been) fair in seeing that the article reflects a NPOV. At least I am clear about that. Newguy34 (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • BLP1E is intended for such things as the Biggest ball of twine where an article about Francis A. Johnson would indeed fail 1E.--Hu12 (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to King of Mann#Pretender, per the observation of Carnildo. I would say delete and redirect, but there is a significant amount of content in this article that need not be reproduced, so merging is more appropriate than deleting. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to King of Mann#Pretender, seems sensible. I'm not quite so certain as some of my colleagues that it will lead to *less* detail however. And I agree Lazydown should be quiet and let the AfD run it's course. You're not helping your cause by responding to *each and every* post here. Wjhonson (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect or merge to a very limited extent to King of Mann#Pretender, per above. Otherwise non-notable person only known for that claim. Sandstein (talk) 10:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to King of Mann#Pretender. Wikipedia is not the venue for establishing one's notability or advancing one's plans. The heavy pushing of agendas in this article by single purpose accounts is disruptive to Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 11:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete since the article title is not a likely search term and the King of Manna rticle already has a section whihc covers this. WP:BLP1E applies, I think. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment to all. I don't think WP:BLP1E applies here, since Howe's claim to notability isn't something he's done, or something that's happened to him. It's something he is, or at least claims to be; the bulk of the media coverage isn't primarily devoted to the coronation or to any specific event, it's devoted to his claim to be King of Mann, and the claim is not an "event" in any meaningful sense. WaltonOne 16:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Just as a matter of interest, the "subject" of the article, Howe, does not seem too bothered viz "I did not create the page and I would not miss it should it meet a speedy demise."--Heraldic 16:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldic (talk • contribs)
So is his notability somehow inherent? According to Howe, his claim isn't based on some unique position as heir (thousands of people descend from the early lords of Man; the heir general of his alleged ancestor Jane Stanley has been identified and is not him). Rather the episode and its notability hinges on Howe having publicized his claim to a title via a newspaper notice and a website, and having that claim get noticed by curious people and eventually the press. I think of the whole claim as a single 'episode', with drawn out sequelae; in this way it seems to me not unlike the one-crime model for marginal notability in WP:BLP1E. I have already voted to delete & redirect. 68.166.235.203 (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment There is no way that there are thousands of people who have a greater claim than Howe's and that descend from the early Stanley Lords of Mann. See James Stanley, 10th Earl of Derby. The 11th Earl of Derby went to a distant cousin who's closet relation was nine generations prior and bypassed all the previous Stanley Lords because there were no heirs to be found. Also, no WP:RS has identified Jane Stanley's heir general. Besides, that is a bit of a red-herring. All the Stanley descendants from Edward Stanley, 11th Earl of Derby and beyond descended from Sir James Stanley, the younger brother of Lady Jane Stanley, Howe's multi-gen great grandmother.--Lazydown (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment The above comment avoids the issue at hand about notability and unsurprisingly tries to argue the merits of Howe's claim here (and in so doing injects various red herrings and at least one false statement). There is no inherent notability in the true or alleged genealogical fact of descending from someone notable, especially after 400 years (the claim to genealogical distinction as an heir is unsupported by reliable evidence). Remember WP:NOTINHERITED. The article shows that the entire personal notability of Howe stems from him having made a claim to the vacant or nonexistent throne of Man; all press coverage has stemmed from that act or event. If Mr. Howe were also notable for something else -- say being a world-famous martial arts instructor or something -- that might change things. 68.166.235.203 (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Asserting that there are thousands of people who could make a similar claim to Howe's is the original red-herring argument and not supported by any reliable source WP:RS. Howe is notable because of the substantial media attention he has received from his claim and the fact that he seems to have beaten the Queen of the United Kingdom, much to the dismay or her supporters here.--Lazydown (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Rubbish. The term "heir general" encompasses the heirs of the Earl of Stanley, which includes ALL the later Earls of Stanley, and their cousins the Murrays. The claim is very obviously bogus. DrKiernan (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • My understanding was that Wikipedia's goal was to inform rather than misinform. Lazydown seems to have taken Howe's claim without critical analysis. In fact, he has striven to remove any mention of errors in, or objections to, Howe's claim. I have voted for deletion, however, if it is to be retained or redirected it must be stripped to the bear facts.
    • If I might respond to Lazydown's laughable assertion that Howe has somehow "beaten" HMQ; Where is the independent evidence of this mighty victory? Or perhaps Howe has succeeded where Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler failed? Perhaps all they need have done is paid for an advert in the London Gazette and their victory would have been assured?--Heraldic 09:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Keep He seems to be written about to a significant degree. The article of course needs some drastic trimming. DGG (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but the article needs to be trimmed to the basics of his biography, with a summary of this controversy. The controversy needs to either be on its own page and summarized at King of Mann#Pretender or simply moved to King of Mann#Pretender. This person clearly meets notability guidelines. — BQZip01 — talk 04:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Why? Lazydown is arguing that (a) one can gain a throne through placing an advertisement and (b) notability is inherited. What are your arguments per WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY? CarbonLifeForm (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Undecided. For some reason, a web site opposing the subject's claims to the crown has been banned from being used as an external link. I am currently appealing that decision. If the opposing site is not allowed to be used as a link, it will not be possible to achieve a neutral point of view and in that case the article should be deleted. However, if the opposing site can be used as a link, the article may warrant being kept (albeit trimmed down). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The web site in question violates all three of Wikipedia's content policies for inclusion, WP:NOR, NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS, and can't be included even as an external link per Wikipedia's policies.--Lazydown (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • In that case, delete. I am skeptical of the idea that content on non-Wikipedia web sites is required to satisfy Wikipedia content policies just to be linked from here. Furthermore, the two web sites currently cited in the external links section consist primarily of original research and are written from a biased point of view with a conflict of interest in favor of the subject of this article. If only sites favoring the subject's claim to be a monarch are allowed to be used as external links, we will never be able to achieve a neutral point of view on this article and therefore it should be deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Being a pretender to a throne isn't a "one event." -- Kendrick7talk 21:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I did a quick "david howe mann" google search, and i found this Fox news article from December 17, 2007. He is still, and most likely will still be, being written about because of the importance of the title he is claiming. Idem Kendrick7 and it meets WP:BIO in an unconventional way.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 00:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to King of Mann#Pretender As this claim is nothing more than a claim, the relevant information in this article should be moved and the rest deleted. Captain panda 03:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. His claims are ridiculous, but they've drawn media attention and are likely to continue doing so. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I found the article and discussion page entertaining, but this guy really isn't notable. Also much of the information appears unverifiable. Perhaps make a three or four line reference to the claim and link to a press article from the "King of Mann" page? 89.242.90.239 (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)— 89.242.90.239 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment. User:jpgordon has done a checkuser (Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kingofmann) and finds that User:Kingofmann and User:Theisles and User:Lazydown are the same person. Kingofmann denies he has more than one account. Theisles appears to be an old disused account. User:DukeofAntwerp (another old disused account) admitted to being David Howe as does Kingofmann. Kingofmann says he wants the David Howe page deleted; Lazydown fights to keep it. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
They are not necessarily the same person because they lead to the same ip. It could be a wife/husband thing or a father/son thing.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 19:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Deleep (or Keelete) - if the only issue is notability, he's obviously notable. But just because we can have an article doesn't mean we need to. --B (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand this argument. If something is notable, why would we not have an article on it? matt91486 (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Because the article is irredeemably tainted by WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. If the article is about somebody who is really notable then it will be recreated soon enough. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a Notable Bio, and will be a "part of the enduring historical record"[10].--Hu12 (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Rubbish. The link you've provided says "a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians". There are NO independent history books that mention David Howe. All the books on Isle of Man history agree that the title was held by successive Earls of Derby, then by the Murrays, until it was sold back to the crown. DrKiernan (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
What I do not comprehend is why Howe is any more notable than Timothy Alexander, self proclaimed Earl of Stirling? Alexander went to the European Court of Human Rights as part of his "case". That has to be more of an historical event of note rather than some media coverage. However, Wikipedia has removed all mention of his claim from the Earl_of_Stirling article. --Heraldic (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the IP from which "Timothy Alexander" was editing was blocked and his edits reversed by the other contributors to the Earl of Stirling page. DrKiernan (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to pass basic notability requirements. Lawrence Cohen 21:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to King of Mann The present article is hopelessly COI-tainted, and the news coverage seems ephemeral at best. "Prince Karl von Wettinberg", who has declared himself Holy Roman Emperor without any genealogical basis, has been covered in the news, too [11], but I hardly think he meets notability. Unless there's independent support for the claim, I think the coverage in King of Mann is sufficient description of him for encyclopedic purposes without incorporating further material from here. Choess (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect to King of Mann#Pretender ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Joshua A. Norton and Nicolás Zúñiga y Miranda and the Fox article. -Dureo (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to King of Mann#Pretender. BLP subject is completely unnotable apart from internet hoaxes. Mathsci (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. As others have reasoned WP:BLP1E fits the bill. Though as of now King of Mann#Pretender seems to contain the relevant info. What else could be merged over? Also Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kingofmann has shown that the subject of the article David Howe - User:Kingofmann uses several sockpuppets, including User:Lazydown who has made 22 edits to this discusion alone. Another sock of his User:Theisles was adding things like "David Howe-Stanley... Prince of Man and the Isles" and inserting his webpages into wikipedia articles in 2006 example well before his "notablity". Welcome to world of pretend internet kings.--Celtus (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin. Please also determine deletion (or not) of Image:Kingiomarms.jpg which was uploaded by User:Kingofmann who claimed to own the copyright. But www.royaltyofman.com claims the copyright and in FAQ implicitly denies having released it to public domain and states specifically that he is not posting on other forums. I put it up for image_afd where the discussion was courtesy blanked pending outcome of this afd. CarbonLifeForm (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per Walton, Matt, and others above. MilesAgain (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I origionaly started the stub and 1E was considered, and did not apply. BLP1E is intended for such things as the Biggest ball of twine where an article about Francis A. Johnson would indeed fail 1E. Things of this substantial nature and despite the WP:IDONTLIKEIT opposition, this is a Notable Bio, and will be a "part of the enduring historical record"[12]. WP:BLP1E does not apply, nor can this be interperated as "one event". A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[13] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[14] and independent of the subject.[15]. The depth of coverage is substantial in this case. --Hu12 (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Opinions on notability here have been expressed independent of editors' opinions on the validity of the claim; I think it is unfair to categorize 'delete' comments as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And to say that 1E was 'considered' (by how many?) does not preclude it being considered here anew. The claim is perhaps more notable than other similar claims which have not been memorialized in Wikipedia (cf. the self-proclaimed 'Earl of Stirling' from last year); but I've seen no arguments that the claimant has any notability beyond the context of this claim, so whatever coverage the claim gets, doesn't this still fit 1E? Yes, this is has more notability than a big ball of twine, but it's not necessarily bigger in terms of press coverage than a single crime committed by an otherwise non-notable person, which is another example given for BLP1E. 68.166.235.228 (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)— 68.166.235.228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Yes, I am another SPA: another newbie, attracted here by the particular case in question (and perhaps that's an argument for its notability and its retention?). But I'm trying to learn Wikipedia norms--not subvert them--and would like to hear your response on the merits of the points I raised. Thank you. 68.166.235.228 (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[16] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[17] and independent of the subject.[18]. The depth of coverage is substantial in this case. This is a Notable Bio, and will be a "part of the enduring historical record"[19]. WP:BLP1E does not apply, nor can this be interperated as "one event". Per Wikipedia:Notability (people), A person is presumed to be notable enough for a standalone article if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.--Hu12 (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the repetition. I am a newbie, an SPA, but I believe I understand the basics of notability and the threshold on source quality, etc. But BP:BLP1E is an couched as an exception to the notability rules; that is, even if the sources are numerous and independent, if they all cover essentially one thing (this man's claim to a throne), doesn't that then miss the bar for inclusion? That's how I interpreted the 'crime' or 'standing for election' examples in the BLP1E passage: one can assume that either event would be covered in perfectly reputable sources, but that would not necessarily transfer notability back to the person who did one thing. As to the unity of the event: What has Howe actually done? He made a particularly audacious claim on a website. What else has Howe done? A lot of hours on Wikipedia. 68.166.235.228 (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not make for exemption of Wikipedia inclusion guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (people) →"...What has Howe actually done? He made a particularly audacious claim on a website. What else has Howe done? A lot of hours on Wikipedia"[20].--Hu12 (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not make for an exemption from Wikipedia inclusion guidelines, but WP:BLP1E does. My worlds you quoted above sound like a condemnatory rhetorical question, but it is a simple substantive one: what *has* Howe done? Can his own actions to earn notability be parsed as more than one action (i.e. making this claim)? I suppose you can enumerate actions by saying that (event 1) he made a claim; and (events 2-n) he spoke to journalists about (event 1). In some ways I would be sorry to see the page go (and I get the sense you would too, since you created the stub), but I sincerely believe we are dealing with 1E and have not seen a valid counterargument to that specific issue. 68.166.235.228 (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Its a clear missapplication of WP:BLP1E in instaces where encyclopedic suitability of an article topic is met by;
  1. A person has been the subject of published[21] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[22] and independent of the subject.[23].
  2. The depth of that coverage is substantial, and will continue to be.
  3. A person is presumed to be notable enough for a standalone article if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
  4. This will be a "part of the enduring historical record"[24], of which WP:BLP1E does not apply, nor can it overide or be interperated as "one event".
Seems repetative, however All these are major encyclopedic suitability criteria of an article topic.--Hu12 (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree; is now repetitive. You note that this meets basic biographical notability thresholds. I agree that it does, but that in addition it falls into the special case of 1E, by which persons who meet notability by the other criteria, fail if all the press responds to one event, not a pattern of notability of the person. You haven't addressed why you think Howe's notability isn't 1E, which is what I first asked you for when I replied to your comment. But at any rate we've made our opinions clear as line items on this AfD. Time for others now. Cheers. 68.166.235.228 (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: So I am trying to understand this. Howe does (or has done for him) some Original Research and declares himself to be King of Mann. He then becomes notable because he persuades a small number of news organizations to write articles about his claim (all based on his Original Research, I have seen no other evidence that anyone else has seriously investigated his claims and found them in any way valid, so they can hardly be described as intellectually independent). Is merely getting people to write about you as a human interest silly season story (hardly substantial coverage) enough to become a notable person? The only site that I have seen which has published any other research on this has been disallowed by the Admin Hu12 as not meeting Wikipedia guidelines because it also included statements deriding the claim. I can see how including a paragraph about his claim in King of Mann is justifiable but not a full article about his otherwise very non-notable life. Dabbler (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete- --Tom 20:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with Hu12 and his arguements that this is not a BLP1E situation. Multiple secondary sources then indicate notability.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I note that he also claims to be the Duke of Antwerp, which - as I understand it - is a crime in Belgium, where the nobility is alive and well. DS (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 06:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jason P. Ferguson

Jason P. Ferguson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Yet another conflict-of-interest biography of a nonnotable person. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the article to eliminate the company promotion and the 'celebrity' info box. I disagree with the notoriety question as Jason is known well within the theatre production circles. I also eliminated the company logo photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.40.44.70 (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but leaning towards delete. If the notability is still not asserted after few weeks of time, I would recommend starting another AfD as I think a better consensus could be formed. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gina DeVivo

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

This is a young actress who has had several drafts written about her over the last day. This one asserts notability, and includes an IMDb filmography, but I'm still unsure whether the lady meets WP:BIO. Weak delete, pending other opinions. Xoloz (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong keep-The article certainly establishes notability and complies with Wikipedia guidelines for notability,Although she is no Halle Berry for example, She has nonetheless taken part in several notable movies and programmes among other things. The article has good references and i can not see a reason why we can not keep it on Wikipedia.Λua∫Wise (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - No real assertion of notability, either through the prose or a selection of reliable sources, thus verifying the article. Many of the roles Gina has achieved are redlinks, therefore I come to the conclusion that if the programmes aren't notable, why should the cast? 'fraid it doesn't meet biographical guidelines either. Rudget. 20:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    Please note that on her partial TV & filmography credits, only 3 programmes are red-linked, out of 10, which is perfectly normal. Other programmes are notable and sometimes even famous, e.g Scrubs and Hannah Montana. Λua∫Wise (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - a review of her parts indicate that she has bit parts as "Teenager At Wedding" etc. Her most significant role is 3 appearances as a minor character in a series which isn't sufficient for me to say she meets the requirement of "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." Also, there is no press coverage or any reviews of her works. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I think this article deserves to stay since it meets the criteria of notability. A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. An IMDB site has been provided as proof to notability. She has notable roles such as ABC's Miss Guided, Nickelodeon's Just Jordon, NBC's Scrubs, Disney's Hannah Montana, and HBO's Lucky Louie. Just because "one writer" thinks her roles are "insignificant" doesn't mean someone else does. A actor doesn't just start off with the "BIG" role, they have to do a lot of roles, big and small, before they become well known. For the episode on Miss Guided, she was the main character for that episode. Also the creators of Just Jordon created more episodes for Gina to be in after she did one episode. THEY didn't think her role was insignificant. There are other young actors/actresses on the Wikipedia site who have less credentials or biographies than Gina does and they are still allowed to be included in Wikipedia. Why aren't they deleted then? I think Gina's profile should stay. RingPOPmom (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC) — RingPOPmom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment - This isn't "Gina's site", it's an encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Whpq's comment Again, then why are other young actors and actresses who are starting out like Gina, "allowed" to have their name on a Wikipedia page? Some don't even have as many credits, a biography or any press coverage or any reviews of their works on their page. comment added by RingPOPmom (talk • contribs) 02:07, 17 January 2008

Reply - Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If those other articles are about actors with no reliable sources to indicate notability, some editor will notice and deal with them appropriately. But under discussion right now is this article. I suggest you read about notability, reliable sources, and verifiability, as well as the articles for deletion process. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. In the present form, the article does not pass WP:BIO notability guidelines. Just give non-trivial, independent and reliable secondary sources, then I'll reconsider my opinion. Dekisugi (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • STUB. Wouldn't this article be classified as a stub? According to Wikipedia, an article too short to provide more than rudimentary information about a subject should be marked as a stub. I searched Wikipedia and found LOTS of other articles on young (not famous)American child actors and their articles are classified as a stub.
As to the question of not passing the notability guidesline. I read the guidelines. IMDB is a reliable source. RingPOPmom (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you're confusing two issues. The foremost question is whether the person passes the criteria for inclusion, set out (for entertainers) here - in particular note the words "significant roles", "large fan base", "unique...contributions". IMDB is a reliable source of information, but that's in relation to citing reliable sources, not notability. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 12:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment About IMDb as a reliable source, due to controversy issues about this, IMDb cannot be used as a secondary source. It can only be used as a tertiary source. If you have only IMDB as a backup for the notability of this subject, then the subject is not a notable actor. I'd say delete. Dekisugi (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply Where does it say that IMDB is not allowed to be used as a secondary source? I also clicked on the link you had in blue that said "controversy issues" and all it gave me was IMDB links. RingPOPmom (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Reply - See this dicussion. Essentially, there is insufficient oversight of IMDB content to make it really reliable. And for the purposes of notability, IMDB is a comprehensive compendium of movie, and more or less television related material, with inclusion encompassing self-submitted material so being listed on IMDB does not indicate notability. If anybody can come up with newspaper or trade journal articles that are about Gina DeVivo, then I'll be convinced about notability. For example, did Variety do an article on her? That is the sort of thing that is being looked for when trying to find reliable sources to establish notability. Note, I've already searched the Variety site and all she has is standard bio directory entry that's skimpier than IMDB. -- Whpq (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the link should be Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. Dekisugi (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I still think this article should be kept. Her recurring role as Widow on the Nickelodeon show Just Jordon is a significant role and that role was just started to appear on the show. The writer's strike, however, put a damper on any new episodes being produced for that show until the strike is over. RingPOPmom (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - please only !vote once. You are free to add additional commentary. -- Whpq (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Since I created the page... I want the page deleted

. I'm tired of trying to defend whether the acting roles she did were "signifcant" enough to the other Wikipedia editors. I know the things she's done ARE significant. So screw it. Take her article off. And by the way...Whpq...get a life.... you are the only one who keeps coming back here on a daily basis to add your "two cents" in. Who cares. You already said what you wanted. Move on to another article. RingPOPmom (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply, at the risk of confirming that I have no life, I will reply. Although it may not seem so, I've answered to try and help you. I've pointed out the conditions under which this article can be kept. I've asked you if you can find press coverage. If there is none to be had now, that does not preclude the recreation of an article for her if she does become more notable will press coverage to demonastrate it. -- Whpq (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Citations to the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, PBS, and Sundance Film Festival pretty clearly show notability. --MCB (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blacks and Jews

Blacks and Jews (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete NN film per WP:NF Mayalld (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Nothing from the article to indicate notability of this documentary, that may or may not have been distributed. Mandsford (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep A documentary film that was broadcast on PBS and was screened at the Sundance Film Festival seems to be a rather strong claim of notability, and is supported by reliable and verifiable sources. It took me minutes to locate dozens of sources (some of which have already been added to the article), which should have been found as part of the nomination process. This Google News Archive search using "blacks and jews" documentary PBS as search terms found no fewer than 77 sources, most of which directly reference this film. That the AfD was completed and submitted within eight minutes of the article's creation raises continuing concerns that the nominator refuses to abide by the terms of Wikipedia:Deletion policy, that requires legitimate efforts to research notability and to edit, improve or merge an article before the mad dash to deletion begins. Alansohn (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you for your extensive precis of the "achievements" of this film. Might I suggest that you refer to WP:NF and explain which of the notability criteria it meets. Your sources prove that the film exists (which was never in dispute). They do not show notability. Once again, you have failed to assume good faith. Indeed, I might counter your accusation of a mad dash to deletion by noting that you seem to pop up whenever I submit an AfD to attack the nomination, and make unfounded accusations of refusal to abide by policy. If an article is about a NN subject, there is no way of improving it which might make the subject notable. Mayalld (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Take a gander at "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and count up the number of independent sources addressing the article before you spout any further rationalizations for deletion. Was this another article where you couldn't find any sources? It's great to see that you're now waiting a whole eight minutes before deciding articles must be deleted. Alansohn (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Doesn't appear to pass notability guidelines, or possess any reliable sources. BLACKKITE 09:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prophet of Doom

Prophet of Doom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Self-published book that fails every criterion of Wikipedia:Notability (books). I've found no evidence that it's been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself - it's mentioned but only in passing in a Business Week article of April 28, 2003 and an Arab News article of August 15, 2004. It's also mentioned in a handful of thoroughly unreliable sources such as WorldNetDaily, but obviously we can't use those because they don't comply with our requirement to use reliable, verifiable sources. It certainly hasn't won any literary awards, it hasn't been adapted for film or television, it isn't used for educational purposes and its author Craig Winn cannot be described as historically significant in any way. Its self-published status also counts against it; as Wikipedia:Notability (books) states, "it should be especially noted that self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press is indicative, but not determinative of non-notability." I realise that some editors may like the book's political thesis but please confine comments to whether or not the book meets the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (books).

To clarify a frequently raised issue, it's not enough for a book to be mentioned only in passing (that's why Wikipedia:Notability (books) talks of non-trivial references). To quote: "The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment." Also, when assessing third-party references to the book, bear in mind that the reference itself needs to be a reliable source: "'Non-trivial' excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable."

One other clarification: deletion discussions aren't votes and their outcome is determined on the basis of the evidence put forward. Unsubstantiated assertions aren't useful in helping to determine a course of action. Please provide verifiable evidence, with reference to Wikipedia standards, to support any recommendations that you make. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep I think the reaction and coverage in the news and the representation of popular culture is enough for me to feel that it should be kept barely.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you provide some examples of "reaction and coverage in the news"? As I said, I looked but could only find a handful of trivial and unreliable mentions of it in media sources. We need hard evidence if the article's going to be kept. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Undecided. I hate the look of the book's political thesis, but I think it may be possible that this is an exception to the vanity publishing rule. I can imagine the rare case of a self-published book which is so inflammatory that it attracts widspread media attention, and this might be one. I'm not saying it's notable (else I'd be saying Keep), just that I think there may be sources out there. I will go and look. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I've scanned the first 200 Google hits and found only two that are not Amazon, blogs, evangelical church websites or islamic defender websites. One is an item from Business Week ridiculing the forthcoming publication of the book. The other is a list of guests to the Mike Gallagher radio show. I don't know either source, but the latter does appear to have some high profile guests elsewhere on his guest list. Nevertheless on balance I'd say I expected to find more from the authoritative media, but didn't, so now feel notability will not be established.Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The very extent of the controversy is testimony to the notability. Wenili3a (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Notability is determined solely by the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (books). Could you explain how the book meets those criteria? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I cannot see how this meets any of the listed criteria. The Business Week link noted above comes somewhat close, but it is one blurb in a much larger column. Even that blurb is focused on the author and only tangentially mentions the book in the context of being just the latest in a string of antics, noting how poorly it was received. Tarc (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't find any sources to indicate this passes WP:BK. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. There have been edit wars over this page since the day it was created but it honestly never occurred to me until now that the entire page should just be pulled. Craig Winn is clearly noteworthy, and his former company ValueAmerica probably is, but his self-published books are not. It seems sufficient to mention them on his own page. Uucp (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's not enough here for a good article now, and there probably never will be. The lack of reliable sources indicates that this book is not at all notable outside of the extremist fringe. *** Crotalus *** 23:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The nomination is thorough, and correctly highlights the standard of sourcing required. I agree that the sources raised in the nom and by others is insufficient to establish notability. ITAQALLAH 00:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no significant notability. DGG (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep the book is subject of a number of controveries and is notable as a book critical of Islam. It has been subject of a debate on free speech and the right to criticize Islam. Calling this book self published is misleading, the book was published and distributed in bookstores and online book distributors. It just so happens that the company that published the book is a subsidiarry of a larger company owned by Winn.We as wikipedia editors should spend more time developing material and less deleting material, the amount of lost intellectual contributions to Wikipedia because of all the deletions is huge.--CltFn (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately the only source you've cited in the article to support the assertion about a "controversy" is a single individual's personal blog. To quote WP:V, articles relating to questionable sources such as blogs "should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." And as WP:V goes on to say, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." If the information has been reported by a mainstream source, it's potentially usable, but not if it comes solely from a personal blog. This is a perfect illustration of the issue that I raised - the lack of non-trivial reliable sources to establish notability. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fatal Fury 2. Marasmusine (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Axel Hawk

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

Fictional character with no references. In particular, there are no secondary sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Article consists of in-universe history, which does not conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and WP:PLOT, and trivia, which does not conform to Wikipedia:Trivia sections. Pagrashtak 16:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Shut the hell up you damn hippie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.116.89 (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 16:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. No harm, but not notable enough. Arny (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Seems to be a well written and the cite source tag hasn't been up there long enough for a deletion now so my advice is give it a bit more time to grow.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    That's because I added it with the AFD; however, this doesn't address my contention that the subject is not notable. If there are secondary sources, they can be added. If there are not, this article cannot grow into anything encyclopedic, no matter how much time it is given. Pagrashtak 16:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to Fatal Fury 2. JuJube (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect but keep page history to the Fatal Fury characters list. User:Krator (t c) 14:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Krator unless there are sources added showing notability in his own right. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per A1. The article is a list of first person assertions, without any unifying raison d'etre, other than that "We believe" it. This fails to provide any encyclopedic context whatsoever. Xoloz (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical christian belief

Biblical christian belief (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Version nominated)Unencyclopedic article. Fails WP:V, as sources to not appear to exist for statements. Possible advertising. Contested PROD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete per CSD A1 no context Mayalld (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. As written, there is no way the article's claims could be established by reference to any source which could be cited. If re-written (entirely!) to say 'Some people claim that.....XYZ' with a good reference that establishes this fact is notable, it could survive. But I suspect this is unlikely to happen, and atricles outlining these views in a neutral manner probably already exist anyway. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Biblical law in Christianity as a likely search term; this reads like the Nicene Creed. --CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 15:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-encyclopedic, no context. Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Keep I can't support this but please keep in mind it has only been started a day ago I think an article should at least be given a week before it is sent to the dogs, wait for proper construction.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note that the article has been heavily improved since the nomination, and the nominator had withdrawn his nomination. Issues with the article following WP:NPOV and WP:OR are really more of a editorial issue; but there is no consensus that the article passes WP:N - given the many interpretations of it made here. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marlboro School

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

Sorry folks, it's another school... A small K-8 school, which I assume means up to age of about 13. I would not have brought this here if it were a secondary school, but for a small school for young children to achieve notability it would have to make some major claims and cite some strong sources, neither of which this does. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. IMO the sources added since I nominated the article do now demonstrate notability (see below). Will leave the nomination in place though, as others have said 'delete' - but closing admin please note the article has changed substantially since my nomination and some of these opinions. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Reads like an account of every prep. school maybe even an advert, probably doesn't reach noteability, sort of like writing an article about my dog and what it does throughout the day (which would probably make more sense if I had a dog)--AresAndEnyo (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Changing my vote. It looks like this is here in case the school's website ever goes down. Unlike those school articles that are written or edited as part of a class project/lesson about Wikipedia, this is written by someone in administration. Normally I'd say, merge to Marlboro, Vermont but this is pratically a student/parent handbook. Mandsford (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. Arny (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm the librarian of the school and we just created this page as part of a junior high unit on wikis and how they work. The students were going to continue to add to and edit the page. The first para they lifted from our handbook, the rest they wrote themselves. We thought it'd be a good idea after looking at all these pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Elementary_schools_in_the_United_States This is actually a great learning experience for the kids, so I'm interested to see what happens. Can't wait to tell them they sound like administrators. FYI, we're public, we're not trying to supplement our website or anything bogus.
Elementary school articles tend to be poorly put together and fail to meet Wikipedia criteria, so they are often deleted or merged into an article for their school district (if an article exists for it) or for their community, and a lot of content sometimes lost. As noted at WP:Notability and WP:ORG, information must be sourced from reliable sources, usually multiple sources that have more than a trivial amount of information on the subject. These criteria can be tough to gather for an elementary school, and Wikipedia editors tend to be tough on enforcing standards, even when the article creators have the best intentions. Best of luck with it. Noroton (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
In response to this I would say that the fact the criteria is tough to achieve for an elementary school is the very reason many school articles are deleted. This is no slur on the quality of the individual establishments. I'm glad you think Wikipedia editors are tough on standards, that shows we're heading in the right direction. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 04:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I've added to the article, including citations from two independent sources. The article meets WP:Notability standards. Interesting school, too. Noroton (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:*Comment brave effort, but IMHO they're not quite enough. Only one reference (7) actually refers to the school itself, and that's for not installing a windmill, rather than any educational issues. In principle I think it's an excellent idea to get the kids involved, will message the originating editor with encouragement. But the technical aspects of writing and formatting are less than half the issue for me, with WP:N and WP:V being far more important and I don't think the former has been completely answered here. Sorry for the length of this comment: trying to say 'delete' while remaining encouraging! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Perhaps your comment came in before I added the information about the standardized testing controversy. It's a rare school that refuses to take them, and I can't see any way around that being very notable and about the school, so WP:N is met. I answer the objection over WP:V below. Noroton (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed - I thought initially that reference (2) was just to the whole district board, but can see from the title of the article that it was specifically about the school. I agree that (even if just in a local context) this just about satisfies notability criteria. Shame the source can't be linked to directly - or can it? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is too bad everybody can't access the article. I've been able to access many articles through newsbank.com -- many more than are available through the free Google News Archives. My newsbank.com access comes through my local library. Other editors might be surprised to find what access to Internet resources their local library Web site gives them. Noroton (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It fails none of them now. Original research? WP:V doesn't apply to an AfD discussion where nearly all of the article is (now) sourced. I think I've fixed all the NPOV problems, but if anything's left, it's a relatively simple editing matter. Noroton (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:V still applies. As far as the sources go, the school handbook/website ones violate WP:COS and represent a conflict of interest. My stance is still Delete. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 02:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
No, we're explicitly allowed to cite the subject itself when we edit articles. In fact, we usually do. Students can participate in articles about their schools without a conflict of interest, and I don't recall hearing that the librarian did the editing (if so, the problem is easily fixed and not an AfD issue). I don't understand why you're citing WP:V and WP:COS, and I don't understand why violations of either would justify deletion rather than simply fixing the problem (if there is a problem). Noroton (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, WP:V and WP:COS affect referencing. If referencing is inappropriate or non-existant then statements within an article can be changed/removed at any time. The conflict-of-interest as I see it is that the article is about an establishment, was created by people from that establishment and is mainly referenced by self-promotional material created for and by that establishment. This in itself is possible grounds for deletion, and a lack of secondary sources (WP:V again) to back up the self-promotional material means a lack of evidence that this establishment has the requisite notability for a Wikipedia article. I hope that clears my viewpoint up as far as application of Wikipedia policies to this article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 06:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please keep in mind that we're supposed to be paying attention to the spirit of policies and guidelines even more than their details, which can be twisted when we don't pay attention to the spirit, and we're also supposed to keep policies and guidelines in perspective by paying attention to real-world concerns. You are objecting to the existence of an article because one or more students from a public school cites that school's Web site. Considering the size of the town, a town meeting form of government, and a forum on the town Web site, where would someone hide if they lied or exaggerated on the school's site? For basic facts about the school, it's a good source. Noroton (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment to the librarian at Marlboro School You can transfer this article to a User page ("userfy it" to use the jargon here) so that the students can learn how to do wikis, then use it as long as the lesson last. I think that the reason that the students "sound like administrators" is because they're not being allowed to "sound like students". The editing history shows perhaps three student contributions, each of which has been quickly corrected to conform to acceptable standards. I'm sure that the students at Marlboro are no less creative than those of any other middle school, but the boundreys/boundaries they're operating inside seem rather strict. All of us, adults as well as kids, learn from our mistakes. Wikipedia provides an opportunity for writers to improve their skills by minimizing the consequences that come with such mistakes. In any event, I hope that the students satisfies (oops!) satisfy the objective criteria. Mandsford (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • ...and another feature of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, even someone who I'm fairly sure isn't a student at Marlboro School. I haven't seen Noroton's edit, but he's within his rights to make changes to your article. Your students, in turn, are within their rights to make their own changes as well. Mandsford (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - page now has the multiple, independent sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Noroton's changes have made it possible for this article to stay up for awhile. I'll have to say, I'm impressed with some of the novel ideas that the school has... the designated climbing trees is one I'll bring up for our small K-8 school. I'm not sure that anyone at the Marlboro School will have any appreciation of the significance, but he's made it more likely that it'll be here for the students to learn from. From here on out, the kids at Marlboro can build on the page. Nice going, Noroton. Mandsford (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep - seems notable enough. a bit more referencing and a bit less gushing advertisement of the school would be good, but by far not the worst examples of either. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete while improved, I still have a concern for sources, the school website isn't an independent source, and the only other source listed is a local newspaper story, I don't see the multiple indepentent sources. Secret account 20:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The Madden and Weiss-Tisman footnotes are two separate stories which have enough depth of coverage to count toward notability. Although I've been describing it incorrectly for months, you actually only need one reliable, independent source providing "significant [depth of] coverage" to reach the Wikipedia notability criteria -- or multiple, reliable, independent sources that provide more than a trivial depth of coverage. See the first paragraph of the "Primary Criterion" section of WP:ORG. Noroton (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I just don't see the local town newspaper as significant, non-trivial coverage required for WP:N, sorry Secret account 23:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
        • There have been many discussions on this and there is no policy reason for a local paper not to be a reliable source. TerriersFan (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • (original author)I have added citations to two recent articles from a reliable independent source (educational journal). The issue is not yet available online but I have the print version and will link when available. Full disclosure: the articles are written by teachers at the school, but the journal is peer-reviewed. We are a tiny school without much outside press, though we did gain some national attention for our stance against standardized testing. We are also a public school, our goal here is not to increase enrollment but to take part in Wikipedia as an educational endeavor. I sincerely thank everyone for the help, encouragement and interest. I'm interested to see the outcome.Maplethelibrarian (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This school is not notable and the article doesn't really assert that it is. This seems to be a totally average school - all primary schools have libraries, put on performances, run field trips and give the kids a break in the middle of the day and the article doesn't assert that it does much beyond this kind of thing. The claims to a notable "Standardized testing controversy" seem weak given that the article states that these tests went ahead and almost all the kids took part and "the school district has a policy allowing parents to refuse to have their children take the standardized tests". This seems to suggest that it was no big deal, even if it was unusual (I note that the article doesn't state that it was unusual though - did the same kind of thing happen in the other schools in the district given that the kids don't have to take part?). The school's course design appears interesting (though it's written in jargon), but that warrants an article on the education philosophy and not the school (the article also doesn't assert that the approach is unique to the school). The tone of the article is also inappropriate for an encyclopedia and seems to have been written as a promotion for the school (for instance, "The school thinks that field trips are a great way for kids to experience things and be engaged", "school officials identified "Realms of Learning" to "guide our instruction," and "In Gym we enjoy ourselves"). --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Since the article meets Wikipedia's standards of notability, both WP:N and WP:ORG, no higher notability requirements are needed. In fact, those guidelines explicitly and prominently (in their top sections) state that no higher requirements should be mandated by editors. That said, the school even meets the Nick Dowling standard of notability in its very unusual public controversy over No Child Left Behind testing. His other objections are matters for editing, not deletion. Noroton (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Trim, Merge to Marlboro, Vermont, I see nothing notable at all about this school. Article still has mission statement and other fluff. It still says "we paint, make collages...". AnteaterZot (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. — from Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus I think we should have this, in boldface, permanently affixed to the top of every deletion discussion page. Maybe we could get a recording to play when you open up the page. Put it on a loop. It can't be any more monotonous than the same old arguments we see here, impervious to arguments based on logic, evidence and policies and guidelines. Noroton (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Let us assume the closing admin will know the relevant policies, and also read the article and judge for themselves. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
        • But we couldn't assume certain other editors did, which was why I posted the quote. It's nice to establish whether or not editors are holding their positions because they don't know policy or don't care about policy. Noroton (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Boldly redirected by nom User:Dorftrottel with no !votes placed, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gray Jedi

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

Uncited and in-universe original research. Delete and redirect to Jedi. --EEMIV (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Agree with nom on all accounts, except deletion itself. The page should stay as a search word redirect to Jedi. Just redirect it and incorporate useful and verifiable material into the main article. Dorfklatsch 15:22, January 11, 2008
  • I boldly redirected to Jedi. The page would have to be recreated anyway to host the redirect and this way the (non-CSD) content can be accessed and salvaged for useful material to add into the main article, via the history. Dorfklatsch 15:28, January 11, 2008
  • Works for me. I'd thought about doing that, but about half of my redirects in Star Wars and Star Trek articles get undone by diehard fans; thought I'd just square it away. But, maybe with someone else's name attach, it'll last :-) --EEMIV (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monetary policy of the USA

Monetary policy of the USA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. Thinly-veiled violation of WP:NPOV. Reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Material within is already covered in other articles. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete: as per discussion page. Content duplicates other articles, such as federal reserve and fractional reserve banking. Most of any content not duplicated elsewhere is original research, highly POV, misuses sources, or simply wrong.--Gregalton (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - OR and POV essay on monetary policy that entirely overlaps material in other articles. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree that the content currently on this page is less than satisfactory; much of it seems to speak generally, and is not about the United States specifically. But the subject itself seems to have potential. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you Ihcoyc.There is one large factual error that needs to be corrected, but aside from that, there only seem to be compliants of NPOV, and weak ones at that. From the article's talk page
I, personally, support the maintenace of the page in a semblence of it's current state.
I have read Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and would still assert that these following policies would support the case for preservation: Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Preserve_information and Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Perfection_is_not_required, as well as Understand Bias and Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance, and to some extent, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. Also, none of the cited reasons for proposed deletion exists in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion except with the possibility of "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia" however, even in checking WP:SOAP I still find no relevence to this article. Sorry for all of this legal-type mumbo-jumbo.
I will explain again that the majority of the information is simple present-day "history." The sources are generally incontrovertible, and there is no need to represent a "mainstream" or "majority" viewpoint because these are *not* opinion pieces. Aside from the Criticisms section, the article does not contain a "view" or "perspective" or "pet theory" of monetary policy --- it is relating factual information related to monetary policy, which is mostly uncontestable due to the fact that processes described are at work nearly everyday. I would contend that the information about the implementation of monetary policy in the US is NOT to be found anywhere in wikipedia detailed as on this page. It is also a moderately sized articles (as far as webpages go ...) so I'm sure that this is not likely a merger candidate. Also, no one seems to disputing the accuracy, nor has anyone pointed out any particular source which is problematic, so I am assuming that the only problem is Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Fairness_of_tone, although I still hold that the presentation of facts which generally would induce negative emotion does NOT necessarily denote a problem of bias. If it is still truly an issue, I'm willing to work on corrections, and anyone can feel free to WP:SOFIXIT, in regards to the tone. I would be interested in examples of how some of the statements could be better worded. BigK HeX (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Now that the factual issues are resolved, and weak NPOV arguments stand as the only impediment, I am confident that amedment is the better course BigK HeX (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The topic is clearly notable. The nomination does not suggest alternative articles which cover this topic. The Federal Reserve System article is already too large per WP:SIZE, being 76K. Its relevant section Implementation of monetary policy seems weak and lacking in sources. This article seems a reasonable breakout of the topic. It might also provide a historical perspective prior to the creation of the Fed in 1913. The rest is a matter of content editing and not a matter for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep short of a possible merge with another article that warden doesn't think is possible, this seemed like a great well constructed article, which I for one fail to see why it was brought here, great article and I am a university economics student (in part).--AresAndEnyo (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Some overlap is not a good reason to delete something. Monetary policies are a fairly large economic policy and should probably be covered. matt91486 (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Commment: All of the "keeps" here refer to the notability of the subject. There is no dispute that the subject could be notable, and an article might be justified - but the article as written is not anything like that. Please also note that the overlap with / repetition of other articles is not minor, and the alternative articles (that could and should be improved) are listed.--Gregalton (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
* off-topic.. thanks for cleaning up the article Colonel ... I copied lots of the formatting from a different economics article that Gregalton disputed.. that article seemed to be based on (obsure?) austrian economists, so a lot of the "See also" is probably misplaced in this article. Still learning my way around editing. Thanks BigK HeX (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "a great well constructed article" does not seem to be favoring only notability BigK HeX (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rewrite Clearly a notable topic, but needs major rewrite for NPOV and to follow encyclopedia style. Joshdboz (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Checking just now, the article seems to be getting good attention from editor(s). Colonel Warden (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mierscheid Law

This is completely fictitious. The last election was in 2005, not 2006. That's assuming it's talking about federal elections, which it doesn't even state. It doesn't give any sources, neither for the election results nor for the crude steel production. It is also full of selective bias (e.g. it solemnly ignores the discrepancy in 1990). — Timwi (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep The election year has been changed now by somebody and it has one very good source(I think the government), my german isn't that good but it seems to be on the same subject the graph comes from that source so I don't think they need to reference the data. While the basis of the law may not be completely correct it is not for us on wikipedia to really decide or take judgement. If I thought the idea of gravity is a bit sketchy doesn't give me the right to delete the article. A google search (and I hate people who use google searches in discussion) turns up more sources saying the same thing. So either it is a quite elaborate hoax with little comical value or an article that may need a bit of work, but I definitely think it should be kept around, without a doubt.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • By the way at least place a few fix tags before nominating it to look like you at least tried to be fair.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - When I first read the nomination, I was concerned about its fictitiousness, but it seems to be rather up front about it. However, if this debate does go to deletion, I'd suggest a merge and redirect with Jakob Maria Mierscheid. That said, someone should look at the German article and see what else can be added to it from that, because I think the article can stand on its own. matt91486 (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Of course the authorship of the law is fictional, in that the law was invented by one or more anonymous German politicians purporting to be the fictitious MP Jakob Mierscheid. But that makes it particularly noteworthy. The Mierscheid tradition has been carried on by German politicians for a long time. Mierscheid even has an entry on the German Parliament's Web site. The law itself is, of course, not fictional, though it might be a misnomer (being merely a hypothesis) and it might not have been meant seriously. The original version of the law naturally ignores the discrepancy in 1990, because it was published in 1983. Various hypotheses have since been put forward for the discrepancy in 2005, one point being that the 2005 elections were premature and would normally have taken place in 2006. Perhaps these later hypotheses should be added. --Boson (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC). Have now added something on later refinements.--Boson (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Jakob Maria Mierscheid. Good material, but does not really need its own article. --MCB (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete JoshuaZ (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Morris Brothers Band

Morris Brothers Band (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band. Speedy declined by an admin as "not eligible". i fail to see how not. tomasz. 14:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Some marginal claims to notability are made (which is probably why the A7 was declined), but I still don't see enough to pass WP:MUSIC. No chart singles, no national awards, no chart singles; all albums seem to be self released. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • delete - it was a huge struggle to get the minor sources currently in the article. a notable band that's currently working should not have this much struggle. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete should have been a speedy. Peter Fleet (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP per WP:SNOW and WP:N (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 02:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Witthaya Hloagune

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

Poorly written article on Non-notable . Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The article is poorly formatted, yes, but the subject is definitely notable. He played more than 100 matches for the Thailand national football team. Keep. AecisBrievenbus 13:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, bad article but he certainly seems notable. Just look at the articles in the other languages about him, they're huge. --Him and a dog 13:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nominator has no understanding of site policies, and is nominating for AfD once a minute. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per above and comment. Can we add a line to the WP:N criteria to the effect that if Niaz(Talk • Contribs) nominates an article for deletion then that is strong prima facie evidence that the subject can be assumed to have notability? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, as the people above said, this is a bad article but is notable under the athlete requirements of WP:BIO. Redfarmer (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - he clearly meets notability. matt91486 (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is called a stub. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Needs cites. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. The article needs sources and lots of work, but if it is true that the person has played 100+ matches and has articles in other languages, that is notable in my book. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Now obvious snowball keep AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn (non-admin close). —Travistalk 15:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iļja Vestermans

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

Notability is questionable. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. But, respective author should include citations. We must remember the fact that Wikipedia is verifiability not truth(WP:VERIFY). Cheers -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • He played for the national football team of Latvia. What more does he need to do to become notable? Keep. AecisBrievenbus 13:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep International footballer. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - has played internationally. This is the second succesive unusual nomination from the same user. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nominator has no understanding of site policies, and is nominating for AfD once a minute. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Vestermans currently still is the 5th best all-time goalscorer for Latvia national football team. That seems important enough to me. --Kazhe (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The nominator has to stop wasting other people's time like this. Nick mallory (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


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

[edit] Nadir, United States Virgin Islands

The result was KEEP per WP:SNOW (non-admin close). SeanMD80talk | contribs 01:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


Nadir, United States Virgin Islands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any problem to accept that this village is notable. But, based on what? Your statement. But WP doesn't allow them. Go through the very first line of WP:V. Add some citations that verify its notability. Hope that will work. Cheers -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per long standing consensus that villages are inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nominator has no understanding of site policies. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Settlement is more likely called "Estate Nadir" after a former plantation (my guess) in that part of the island: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22estate+nadir%22. There are no sources which refer to it only as "Nadir, St. Thomas" and there are very few that talk about "Estate Nadir" itself. Article should probably be moved if other concur. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Places Villages are inherently notable. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
  • comment. Google maps does bring up a location, at the bottom of Nadir Hill Road south of Mariendal: will the nominator withdraw? --Paularblaster (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per source added and longstanding consensus on WP:Inherent notability of well-defined places and locations. Alansohn (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - AfD is NOT a place to go to ask for article improvement. It's a blatant misuse of the vehicle. If you feel like it needs sources, tag it with cite sources, or go to a WikiProject and ask for help, or quick go on Google to find one. matt91486 (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong, speedy keep. The nominator is being extremely unhelpful by nominating for deletion a series of articles on real places, simply because they have just been started (within an hour and a half of nomination) and I had not yet got around to adding further details - including references - which I planned to do today once I was awake and had a work break (and as I am currently in the process of doing). The nomination of brand new articles on communities is extremely unhelpful - I would advise the nominator to look for other things to busy him/herself with. Grutness...wha? 23:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Now obvious snowball keep AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WIKI:SNOW and the notability of villages (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 01:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Calabash, United States Virgin Islands

Calabash, United States Virgin Islands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any problem to accept that this village is notable. But, based on what? Your statement. But WP doesn't allow them. Go through the very first line of WP:V. Add some citations that verify its notability. Hope that will work. Cheers -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If a lack of sourcing is your issue with this article, then say so in the nom. Don't say "non-notable", because that is never an issue when towns or villages are concerned. If a village exists, it is by definition notable, no matter how small; if it doesn't exist, the article should obviously be deleted, but non-existence has nothing to do with non-notability. AecisBrievenbus 15:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per long standing consensus that villages are inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nominator has no understanding of site policies. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Places Villages are inherently notable. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
  • strong delete unless it can be shown to exist. Google maps just brings up a location in the National Park that doesn't even have a road running through it. Is it a ramblers' rest? --Paularblaster (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename to Calabash Boom, United States Virgin Islands or similar. Sources: Google Maps and PlaceNames.com —Travistalk 16:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Niaz Bhayia, Existing places are always notable. If the article lack of verifiable sources, then it should be tagged with proper template.--NAHID 19:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong, speedy keep. The nominator is being extremely unhelpful by nominating for deletion a series of articles on real places, simply because they have just been started (within an hour and a half of nomination) and I had not yet got around to adding further details - including references - which I planned to do today once I was awake and had a work break (and as I am currently in the process of doing). The nomination of brand new articles on communities is extremely unhelpful - I would advise the nominator to look for other things to busy him/herself with. Grutness...wha? 23:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Now obvious snowball keep AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW and the notability of villages (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 01:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palestina, United States Virgin Islands

Palestina, United States Virgin Islands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please tell me how do I know that this village is located on Earth or on the Moon? Does it have any citation? Please go through the first line of WP:V. Hope that will help you. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If the lack of sourcing is the issue with this article, then say so in the nom. Don't say "non-notable", because you might just make us think that you were thinking this article should be deleted because of a lack of notability. And villages are by definition notable, regardless of their size. AecisBrievenbus 15:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please review WP:N, especially the part that says editors should check for sources themselves.(*) Please consider using Google before tagging for deletion. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Places, "Cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size." Keep. AecisBrievenbus 13:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per long standing consensus that villages are inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nominator has no understanding of site policies. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Places Villages are inherently notable. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC) (User:BQZip01)
  • Strong delete unless it can be shown to exist. Google maps is not the be-all and end-all of verifiability, but as a first stop it does not give promising results (a location in the US Virgin Islands comes up, but as an address in "Emmaus"; the satellite view just shows a road through the National Park - no sign of any buildings). --Paularblaster (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per source added and overwhelming consensus on WP:Inherent notability of defined and documented places. Alansohn (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong, speedy keep. The nominator is being extremely unhelpful by nominating for deletion a series of articles on real places, simply because they have just been started (within an hour and a half of nomination) and I had not yet got around to adding further details - including references - which I planned to do today once I was awake and had a work break (and as I am currently in the process of doing). The nomination of brand new articles on communities is extremely unhelpful - I would advise the nominator to look for other things to busy him/herself with. Grutness...wha? 23:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Now obvious snowball keep AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW: notable but needs improvements, sources (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 02:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kruidvat

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

Non-notable pharmacy chain. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep: It is very notable. In the Netherlands you can find one in practically every town and city. Maybe you think this because at first I messed up and said the take over cost a million and not a billion?--Him and a dog 13:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article requires cleanup, but the subject is definitely notable. AecisBrievenbus 13:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Because I agree that if the chain is ubiquitous in the Netherlands, it is notable. Because I agree with the second keep vote also. Because the nominator is a clueless Twinkle user who does no research before nominating and has no idea of the deletion criteria here. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as a copyvio of [25] (WP:CSD#G12). AecisBrievenbus 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bretislav Novotny

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

Non-notable and poorly written article. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. Highly notable Czech violinist [26]. Since when was 'poorly written' a criterion for deletion? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW, WP:N (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 02:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Raydon

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

Non-notable village. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The very first line of WP:V is Wikipedia is Verifiability not truth. Could you please show me those citations that verify the fact that this article is notable enough to stay on WP? Please do not go for your POV rather add some citations. That will work. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It is a village, it is by definition notable. All it needs are sources to confirm its existence, such as Google Maps and ViaMichelin. If its existence is confirmed, its notability is confirmed. AecisBrievenbus 15:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The consensus is that populated places are inherently notable, and this one easily meets WP:V. Deor (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Article is referenced and all places are deemed inherently notable. Apologies for not WP:AGF, but I feel that this nomination may have a touch of WP:POINT due to my criticism of the nominee for a very poor nomination of an obivously notable subject yesterday. Perhaps another read up on policy is required? пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Places, "Cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size." Keep. AecisBrievenbus 14:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Article could do with an infobox, but it easily meets Wikipedia notability criteria. King of the NorthEast 14:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nominator is nominating articles without the slightest discrimination or understanding. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep I'm getting concerned about noms by this editor. This article breezes through notability and verifiability. Niaz: If an article has no sources, the first priority should be to source it, not to delete it.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 15:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • snowball keep. Niaz, you need to lurk more on AfD to find out what gets nominated, kept etc. Villages, in fact most places, are always notable. Merkinsmum 19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Now obvious snowball keep AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:N and WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 03:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laurence Kavanagh

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

Non-notable. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. Notable historical figure [27], as the article makes perfectly clear. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being a member of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly for 10 years is enough for me. AecisBrievenbus 14:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why do you say that? Charles Matthews (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as he was an Assemblyman.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 14:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - this article qualifies based on the most basic principle for notability for persons: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." --Big_iron (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Now obvious snowball keep AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:N and before WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 03:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abbey Ales

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

Non-notable. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. An award winning brewery, as the article makes clear. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now, depending on the awards the brewery has won according to the article. If they are notable, I !vote keep, if they're not, I !vote delete. AecisBrievenbus 14:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Why do you say that? Charles Matthews (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I created this stub as it was a red link on Bath, Somerset as part of trying to prepare that page for FA nomination see Talk:Bath, Somerset. Other similar sized breweries in England such as: Banks's, Bath Ales, Darwin Brewery, Double Maxim Beer Company, Greenall's, Hambleton Ales, Holdens Brewery, Hoskins Brothers Ales, Oakham Ales, Oakleaf Brewery... In fact many of the entries on Category:Beer and breweries in England are small stubs, with no more content or notability than Abbey Ales. . I know that providing other examples does not justify this particular article, however I feel this reflects the cultural importance of Cask ale and small regional breweries within the UK. I will attempt (hopefully with help) to expand the article within the next 48hrs.— Rod talk 14:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Noted here Google news. Perhaps needs renaming as abbey ales also seems to be used as a generic term for ales brewed in the style of European abbeys. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 07:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HalfPrice Punk-Rock band

HalfPrice Punk-Rock band (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Highly POV piece; possibly some claims of significance, but a rewrite seems unfeasible, especially without any references to work from. Marasmusine (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete They're real, but don't pass WP:MUSIC and the article is a complete mess. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Material in article is unsalvageably unencyclopedic and is written in a way that makes a rewrite unfeasible. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as fails WP:V; I had little luck Googling them and the article cites no sources.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per established precedent. To quote Aecis, “Dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church are definitely notable, regardless of size.” —Travistalk 04:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diocese of Foligno

Diocese of Foligno (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. It is a notable ecclesiastical territory. Why do you say it isn't? If you used Google rather than Twinkle, you'd see that of the hits for "diocese of Foligno", the first is an encyclopedia article. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, unless you want to delete every article in this category [28]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church are definitely notable, regardless of size. Keep. AecisBrievenbus 14:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep -why are we even here? Decisions to nuke articles should not be made by somebody just because they have a disinterest in the subject. This article has clear encyclopedic content -it could do with a rewrite though ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 20:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Quite notable! Arny (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Snowball Keep, This is quite clearly notable and does not deserve to have an AfD tag at the top of it.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 20:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As Charles Matthews said, "It is a notable ecclesiastical territory." Fg2 (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for now, as some of the deletion arguments have absolutely no rational whatsoever. Please avoid statements such as "non-notable" in an AfD debate because it's not really saying anything. Also, the AfD was created hours after the article creation, and I don't think it did gave the time for editors to cite sources. I am hoping that few weeks should be enough for editors to cite sources, if this article still does not assert notability in that time, then I would recommend another AfD. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 18:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yelet Giorgis Church, Bulga

Yelet Giorgis Church, Bulga (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    Per nom? The nom gave no rationale for deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. According to the deletion log, this article existed before only as an external link. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why do you say that? You are randomly nominating short religion-centred articles, saying they are "not notable". Charles Matthews (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I found a verification easily under the spelling Giyorgis. I think it is very hasty to assume that good sources for Ethiopia can be found by superficial searches - Romanisation is not standard. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless sources can be found to verify the existence. I cleaned up the article but had no luck sourcing it.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 15:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No source information. Fails WP:V 131.44.121.252 (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, there also appear to be no sources on google either. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: No valid rationale given for deletion. -- Masterzora (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep. However ancient, Ethiopian churches tend not to have webpages (so are effectively invisible to google). Despite this, and despite the comments above, google does actually turn up evidence that it exists, although not evidence that is serviceable in sourcing an encyclopedia article. I suggest Niaz go to the reference desk at his or her local library and source the article: that is the first duty of an editor bringing an article for deletion. --Paularblaster (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 valid rationale for deletion. Canley (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kannamcode Cathedral

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

Non-notable. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Why do you say that? Charles Matthews (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sources appear to be available for this. Also not that this article was tagged for AfD 5 minutes after creation. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep: No valid rationale given for deletion. -- Masterzora (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Discworld (world)#Hogswatchnight. The weight of consensus here is roughly for a merge, but just about the entire content of this article is already in the specified section. In fact, this article may technically be a GFDL problem, as I assume the content was mostly copied and pasted out of the Discworld article.--Kubigula (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hogswatch

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

Article seems to be nonnontable fictional element, that is unreferenced, and of interest to a very few people VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 13:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: The referencing is an issue, but given I've had someone send me a Hogswatch card and I've seen mention of people celebrating it, it looks like this either has or is in the process of acheiving independent notability. I suspect evidence for this will be easier to gather for someone in the UK, though I will try. If the article is to survive, documentation will need to be added, so that it is not just in-universe information. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge Keep and fix, or merge into some better place in the Discworld articles. It's strange that wikisearch doesn't find this being used, because it is. The Hogfather works in mysterious ways. htom (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and complete. Just after airing SkyOne TV film (Terry Pratchett's Hogfather) Hogswatch has gained enough fame to have a separate article. Even in Iran Hogswatch was celeberated by a group of fantasy fans(News item titled "Happy Hogswatch!"). ‍- Qoqnous (talk) 08:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, and no real world context. If people want it to stay show us some sources to establish real world context. Ridernyc (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No secondary sources to establish notability and violates WP:NOT#PLOT. The article borders on non-sensical to me since it provides very little real-world context for someone unfamiliar with the series, but it appears to contain original research as well. Doctorfluffy (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • !vote but comment Added a BBC article. There appear to be more such articles from different sources, but they cost money to get... Not sure one source is enough. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep AfD isn't cleanup. The subject is notable. Editors can add references to demonstrate notability, as Hobit has demonstrated. Rray (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Discworld or Hogfather. Valid content, but such a minor fictional element does not need its own article. --MCB (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • While Merge may be appropriate, I think the point is that people are actually celebrating it in the real world. Silly perhaps, and merge may still be the right thing (notice my !vote). Hobit (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. --VS talk 00:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] China at the 24th Chess Olympiad

China at the 24th Chess Olympiad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Similar AfD result of China at the 37th Chess Olympiad.

It is a raw source statistics material without any further text or context. Please see similar AfD closing debate for another article above. Dekisugi (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per previous AfD cited Mayalld (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per previous AfD cited Brittle heaven (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - perfectly encyclopaedic. The context is wholly clear from the article. No deletion grounds were specified (precedent is not a valid ground). TerriersFan (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --VS talk 23:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] China at the 23rd Chess Olympiad

China at the 23rd Chess Olympiad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Similar AfD result of China at the 37th Chess Olympiad.

It is a raw source statistics material without any further text or context. Please see similar AfD closing debate for another article above. Dekisugi (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per previous AfD cited Mayalld (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per previous AfD cited Brittle heaven (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - perfectly encyclopaedic. The context is wholly clear from the article. No deletion grounds were specified (precedent is not a valid ground). TerriersFan (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
nb: the subject article of this AfD is now at City of Bones (Cassandra Clare novel) —Jack Merridew 09:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn; see post here by KittyRainbow offering sources and an intent to improve the article wo/ the plot vio issue. --Jack Merridew 12:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] City of Bones

City of Bones (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is a huge WP:PLOT vio that has been redirected to the author's page and has been repeatedly brought back. There is also content concern as the bulk of the article was uploaded in one shot oldid by a throwaway account --Jack Merridew 12:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

oldid of version nominated
The Mortal Instruments Trilogy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
also nominating The Mortal Instruments Trilogy (two of which have not been published), which is currently a redirect, but which also keeps resurrecting in the same manner; see the last version. NB: there are WP:COI concerns here (and on the author's article) as the account that created them is User:Cassieclare. Further note that City of Bones and The Mortal Instruments Trilogy were created on consecutive days and I suspect they were the same user. --Jack Merridew 12:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom. --Jack Merridew 12:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect Both, that's an awfully long plot summary. It's a plausible search term, so should be kept as a redirect at least, but the book itself would not seem to be notable at the present time. The current version that is being constantly reverted to is manifestly unsuitable as an encyclopædia article. Lankiveil (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
    Redirect has been tried; I'm now seeking Delete and then Redirect to end the edit war. --Jack Merridew 13:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    AfD isn't the solution to edit wars. Rray (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete both and redirect. Overlong plot summary, nothing but plot summary, no real-world information.Kww (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The article was rewritten at this point and the following comments reflect the shorter, revised version. The longer, nominated version can be seen here
  • Keep article has now been stubbified and contains real-world information, and the plot summary concerns addressed. Catchpole (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    please cease being disruptive; absent a positive outcome here, the original plot summary will be reverted to. --Jack Merridew 14:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • We don't delete articles just because someone might make a bad edit to it in the future. If we did, we would have no articles at all. Rray (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, bringing the article into compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is not disruption. As the AfD tag says, "Feel free to edit the article." --GentlemanGhost (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep NYT best-seller. AFD is not the place to bring an edit war. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Strong keep - This is a long post, but in it I attempt to summarize the history leading up to this nomination for the benefit of the admins. There's a bit of background not disclosed and some misinformation in the nominator's statement.
Both of these articles have been through an AFD back in August[29] with a resolution of No consensus. A more detailed look at the AFD, however, shows that opinions for City of Bones was 3 to keep and 2 to delete, with instructions to discuss merges on the talk pages. No discussion ever happened or course, but merges were immediately instituted anyway, with the predictable revert wars ensuing. It's important to note that there was only one editor, VivianDarkbloom, who kept unmerging the Mortal Instruments article, so this seems to be a backhanded way to impose restrictions her by limiting everybody else rather than dealing her directly. Baby and the bathwater, anybody?
There is also this discussion to consider, in which a proficient editor has stated an intention to work on the article as soon as they read the book. Jack's nomination also ignores the reviews that are starting to be integrated, demonstrating real-world perspective and evidence of notability. In fact, this AFD was filed immediately after Jack was rebuffed for trying to remove a citation that City of Bones was on the NYT 10-best seller list.
I'm not sure what he means by "content concern" just because it appeared fully-fleshed. As someone who patrols new pages, I will say that I'd much rather see a new page with thought and effort behind it than a barely existent stub. Unless he's alleging copyright infringement, I don't see that as an issue but rather some form of inuendo.
The COI concerns are completely moot because the author's article has undergone a massive rewrite[30], courtesy of the same editor that wants to tackle a City of Bones rewrite, and the Mortal Instruments Trilogy page has been reduced to a redirect.
Finally, his drawing attention to the fact that two articles appeared on the same day by two different authors implies some sort of puppetry. Pretty strong allegations with only the most threadbare circumstantial evidence. His comment above that only a positive (delete?) outcome here will result in reversion lacks an assumption of good faith.
  • Addendum - I see that while I've been crafting this very long post City of Bones has drastically altered, pretty much invalidating the reasons for the nom in the first place. Figures. I'll be changing my keep to Strong. Pairadox (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Lack of verifiable sources and grave concerns about COI and self-promotion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - a book on the New York Times bestseller list is notable. The rewriting seems to have addressed plot and conflict of interest issues. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per others. Subject is notable, content is encyclopedic, and reliable sources are cited. Rray (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect. The article is a trigger for a huge and overwhelming plot summary and the germane points (sales, reception) can be amply indicated on the author's article page. Eusebeus (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is about the book itself, not the author, and the documented accomplishments of the book supported by reliable and verifiable sources satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. If one honestly believed that the information belonged on the author's article, the proper response would be Merge. Alansohn (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article as it stands now is clearly encyclopedic. It gives evidence of notability and has citations. The nom's other issues can be addressed by further improvements to the article. Also, keep the redirect. It would be wrong to have an article based on a future event, but I feel that a redirect is appropriate. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since the article was rewritten with third party reviews and a source showing it in a best sellers list, notability is just about established. Also keep the Mortal Instruments article as a redirect. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 17:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep While being an NYT bestseller probably indicates popularity rather than notability, the book has undeniably been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, independent published works: Publishers Weekly #1, Publishers Weekly #2, School Library Journal #1, School Library Journal #2, The Trades, BlogCritics, Journal of Mythic Arts. As the second book has not yet been published (two months or something to go) I think that The Mortal Instruments Trilogy should remain a redirect, at least for the time being; attempts by people to unnecessarily turn it into an article (i.e. before there are reliable sources to merit that) should be dealt with via reversion, not deletion; possibly some form of protection would be appropriate. I also vote Strong Keep on Cassandra Clare: she "has created [...] a well-known work [...] which has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Also, as her article now shows, she is notable for other things - City of Bones may be her first published novel but she was known previously as a fan fiction writer. (There are several reliable sources that discuss this.) And on the subject of conflict of interest - surely in this case that should prompt a review of the content, not deletion. The book and the author are notable, the trilogy probably will be at some point... repeated attempts at POV-pushing, fancruft or similar by the author/fans/anybody should not be a cause for deletion, it should be a cause for vigilance on the part of editors. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    You certainly do have a few good looking sources there. I'm going to withdraw this nom based on your post here and will assume that you will look to improving this article sans the huge plot vio. Please note that I did not nominate the author article, I only commented on it's early history. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've always wondered about books that have been published by prominent publishing houses. I hate the word, but I can kind of see a granted notability there. However, regardless of that, the sources provided above give enough notability for me. I (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment all prominent trade publishers publish a large number of unsuccessful books--its the nature of the business. But being a best seller is notable. Every books every listed in the NYT best sellers is probably appropriate for an article--they will all have been reviewed or discussed in multiple places. DGG (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - bestseller - issue appears to be about article quality and instability, which is not addressed in this forum. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Redirect for Aussie Mite optional. Spellcast (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aussie Mite

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

Vegimite clone that has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. The article itself provides insufficient information to assert notability, and there appear to be doubts as to whether it is being produced any more. Also included in this AfD is the producer of the product:

All Natural Foods (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Again this also fails WP:CORP Gavin Collins (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, I was about to get angsty because I thought this was the Dick Smith clone, which certainly is notable. However, you are completely corerct, this is a non-notable clone that I've never seen in a supermarket before in my life (and I'm saying that as someone who enjoys thickly spread Vegemite on toast!). Lankiveil (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Comment I believe it is the Dick Smith clone. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, Dick Smith's Foods product range ([31]) doesn't list it. The "Practically Edible" link below also states that "linkages between the product and Dick Smith Foods are unclear". The jar also doesn't have an Australian flag and Dick Smith's ugly mug on the label! In the absence of solid evidence, I don't think it can be proven that they're linked. Lankiveil (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Merge and redirect Aussie Mite to Dick Smith Foods -- the company that distributes Aussie Mite. Not enough here (or much of anywhere) for a separate article, but it could be used as a search term, and Dick Smith Foods would be the perfect place to send users. Delete All Natural Foods as it seems to have even less information available than Aussie Mite. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sourced (but without prejudice to recreating if and when the product achieves notability). I don't see proof of notability in the article and I couldn't find it in a quick look through the 470 (not unique) google hits. Practically edible is a specialized food encyclopedia, not a good source to show notability. The website says that "tens of thousands of Australians" are switching to this product. If that were literally true that's not enough to be notable just for popularity, but it's a new product so give it time. If it does well and becomes a notable product, surely someone will write about it soon enough. The article is so brief we're not sacrificing much to delete it for now. Wikidemo (talk) 10:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Exploding Whales per current consensus. Apparently, it used to redirect to this anyway. Non-administrator close. Rudget. 20:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exploding Wales

AfDs for this article:
Votes for deletion/Exploding Wales
Exploding Wales (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Seems like an old joke that was originally part of BJAODN. It should probably either be either moved to the Wikipedia: namespace or deleted. slakr\ talk / 12:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but leaning towards delete or merge. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Samoa's results and fixtures

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/American Samoa's results and fixtures
American Samoa's results and fixtures (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unmaintained (and probably unmaintainable) list of fixtures of result. Per WP:NOT#STATS and previous and current consensus on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papua New Guinea fixtures and results and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denmark national football team season 2006 Angelo (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating for the same reason the following articles (all of them being created by the same user, by the way):

--Angelo (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge all back to the articles about the individual national teams, and then delete and salt. The adage, "Wikipedia is not a sports page" applies here. Since friendly matches and qualifying ones don't happen every week, merge shouldn't be that difficult a task. Mandsford (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete A potentially endless fixture list is not what I would expect from an encyclopaedia. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 05:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic, no merge as more statistics/trivia lists are not what the national team articles need. Punkmorten (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge to national team's main article. GiantSnowman (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep all. They might not have much in there. But they can be expanded and as per my vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papua New Guinea fixtures and results keep. Peanut4 (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep all - encyclopaedic and makes sense to keep this detail out of the main articles. TerriersFan (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep all except Bahamas; delete Bahamas These should have been considered individually as the two in the nomination were. Since 1 of the two examples was kept and 1 deleted I don't see how the nominator claims a consensus. The Bahamas page should be deleted since it contains no dates and thus is not encyclopedic. The alternative of merging into the main articles has some merit but that is a matter for separate editorial action. BTW 'delete and merge' is not actually an option; if we merge then the history needs to be kept with a redirect as I understand it. Finally, I don't agree with the grounds of the nomination; these are not 'long and sprawling' lists and they do include context. BlueValour (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, what Mandsford said. Except I wouldn't go as far to salt, just change these into (possibly locked if recreation is a issue) redirects.--Him and a dog 19:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. I should remind that establishing where the consensus lies is not the result of a count of keep, merge and delete comments but that those comments are saying in relation to valid argument for keep or delete. This article has a long and complex history in the AfD sector and even what appears to be an unclosed deletion review - all of which have been read by me and considered in this closure. I have not been asked to SALT the article and its variations but that may be required if total closure is to be achieved. There are of course two possibilities for reaching that total closure and so in due course depending upon the outcome - if asked I will perform that function.--VS talk 23:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Juggernaut Bitch!!

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/The Juggernaut Bitch Articles for deletion/The Juggernaut Bitch!! Articles for deletion/The Juggernaut Bitch (3rd nomination)
Articles for deletion/The Juggernaut Bitch (again)
The Juggernaut Bitch!! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Although this article has existed for over a year and a half, it isn't even close to meeting Wikipedia quality standards. The overwhelming majority of the article consists of plot summary, original research, speculation, or some combination of the above. The fundamental problem is that there is only one reliable secondary source — this MTV article. Furthermore, the "Juggernaut Bitch" film is not the subject of that MTV article; rather, it is mentioned in passing, as a point of trivia. Anything worthwhile could easily be included in a brief paragraph in the article for X-Men: The Last Stand, referencing the MTV article to discuss the tagline. This article in itself simply fails basic Wikipedia policy. *** Crotalus *** 11:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, as per good deletion rationale. No non-trivial secondary sources to show how this is notable or important. Lankiveil (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete WP:BOLLOCKS and fancruft. Any material worth saving could be included in the pages for the Juggernaut (comics) or X-Men: The Last Stand. However, there doesn't seem to be anything worth putting anywhere else. Doc Strange (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Very reluctant Merge. While I personally stand by the article's existance per se (due to the video's status as an internet phenomenon), I concede with the reasoning. Hopefully, it will find an expanded place on the primary articles (Juggernaut (comics)/X-Men: The Last Stand). fhb3 (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Strong Merge as above. The topic to date only has these three vectors of reference (phenomenon, original character, movie). Nahum Reduta (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable as per the previous AfD discussions; the inclusion in the movie sealed the deal and ended discussions as to whether it was "notable" --which often, sadly, has nothing more to do with whether a subjective editor "has heard of it or not" or "thinks its silly"; sorry, that's not the point. Also, waiting until 2008 to do another one of these is lame. --Bobak (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • "Notability" is not the primary criterion on whether an article should be kept or deleted. Neither is the existence of previous AFD discussions. The fundamental problem is the lack of non-trivial, reliable third-party sources. *** Crotalus *** 20:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yeah, it definitely doesn't fail notability, and I'm pretty sure we can improve the article a bit.Master Bigode (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Can you set a time frame for this? I've seen countless AFD discussions where "keep and cleanup" was the result, and then in 6 months or a year the article was still no good. Right now, the article contains exactly one fact cited to a reliable, secondary source: namely, that the infamous "bitch" line in X-Men 3 was inspired by this video. Someone else cited an article saying that Youtube had taken down the video, so that's a second fact. A brief, factual plot summary that is primary-sourced to the original video itself would also be valid, but not if it involves interpretations of the video (which would be original research). Even taking all this together, I'm not at all sure there is enough for a good article to ever be written on this subject. *** Crotalus *** 01:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment A timeframe isn't required for improvement. Wikipedia isn't on a deadline. Rray (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment 18 months is plenty long enough. This article was restored from deletion in June 2006. Here is how it has changed since then.[32] Plenty of time has been allowed to improve this article in line with policies. WP:DEADLINE cuts both ways. There is no deadline for the inclusion of articles either. Hiding T 12:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • 'It definitely doesn't fail notability'? Could you please provide evidence of that notability then, in the form of significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources? Because at the moment, the article doesn't have them. Terraxos (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep A cleanup tag might be appropriate here, but deletion wouldn't. AfD isn't a tool to be used to force article cleanup. More sources can be added at any point in the future. Rray (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Absolutely zero notability, flatly fails WP:RS. I wouldn't even support a merge - there's no content worth keeping here. Terraxos (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete an Non notable film. Marlith T/C 03:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 12:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Closing admin, count me as delete or merge depending on consensus. I base my opinion on the two previous afd's which I have added a listing to, as well as the first deletion review and the concerns of the nom and others within this debate. This may have been of note a couple of years ago, to the extent a [deletion review] which was never closed but appears to have justified restoring the content per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 June) and included stopping the third afd. Process seems to have gone awry here, and I do not think that should get in the way of the strong consensus already seen in previous debates. Hiding T 12:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very popular meme. Survived previous deletion attempts and deletion review. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. It survived one deletion debate, failed the second, failed the first deletion review and then got caught in a process loop in the second deletion review and third afd from which it is now emerging. Hiding T 14:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Noted, however how can this article not be notable if it was used in an X-Men movie?[33] Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. For all of the myriad of reasons cited above. Pellucid (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Really quite un-notable.--Him and a dog 19:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Question How does one recategorize this page from Category:AfD debates (Science and technology) to Category:AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)? I don't see category tags anywhere in it. Would it be OK to just add the Category:AfD debates (Fiction and the arts) category at the bottom of the page? --Coppertwig (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Tikiwont (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ausonia national football team

Ausonia national football team (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about a bizarre "national" football team claiming to represent the South of Italy, who played two friendly matches in 1998. Actually, I am a proud Southern Italian and I've never heard of this before. It should be deleted basically per WP:N and previous consensus on Normandy national football team. Angelo (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also including into the current AfD the following articles:

  • Aosta Valley national football team
  • South Tyrol national football team

which both played only a single friendly match in 1999, so even less notable than Ausonia. --Angelo (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Angelo (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, as far as I can see a non-notable regional team formed to play in a couple of non-notable friendly matches against another non-notable regional team. Not even a member of the NF-Board, as far as I can see, which would give it some credibility. Lankiveil (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete - as per recent AfDs for Normandy and Savoy. - fchd (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - surely this is no different to if, say, a team representing Essex played a team representing Surrey? And that sure as heck wouldn't be notable........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • For Ausonia, it's different, as it is a proposed region artificially created by a fringe Southern Italian party which hardly manages to run in the elections. --Angelo (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, not really a team. Punkmorten (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 10:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Football at the 1896 Summer Olympics (unofficial)

Football at the 1896 Summer Olympics (unofficial) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Article about an unofficial football tournament apparently held during the 1986 Summer Olympics. Hardly verifiable, not mentioned in the official Olympic Games report [34], completely unsourced, does not satisfy both WP:RELY and WP:N. Angelo (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete currently, neither source fulfils RS. I'd be happy to change my mind if anyone could find an RS for this. --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:V. Lankiveil (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete as per nominator. - fchd (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete some Olympians playing soccer matches between events in 1896 isn't notable. Gwernol 12:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep a valid article, and very notable as it was probably one of the first international football tournaments. As such it is mentionable alongside articles such as the Sir Thomas Lipton Trophy and the Torneo Internazionale Stampa Sportiva. At least one web source - RSSSF - is generally considered reliable by WikiProject Football members and is regularly used as a reference. I have deleted the other (which looked to be a copyvio) and, having found that David Goldblatt's The Ball Is Round - a comprehensive and reliable history of the global game according to the reviews [35] - records it on page 243, added that in. That makes two reliable sources in my view. Qwghlm (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Where abouts on RSSSF? Their Olympics page, here says only "1896 no Olympic football tournament" and commences listings with the demonstration events of 1900. - fchd (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Here - as referenced in the article. Qwghlm (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per comment on the talk page. Bill Mallon is a reputable Olympic historian, and the quote supplied by User:Topcardi trumps the other sources, in my opinion. (Football is sometimes listed as having been contested in 1896 as an exhibition or demonstration sport, although no such designation existed at the time. Supposedly a match between a Greek club and a Danish club took place. No such 1896 source supports this and we think this is an error which has been perpetrated in multiple texts. No such match occurred.) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Even with the source (p243 of The Ball is Round) the article itself shows that this was a couple of games that happened to be played while the Olympics were going on, I'm assuming on the grounds. A team from Athens played a team from Izmir, and it played a team that is listed as being from somewhere in Denmark. Now if it had been promoted as a nation against nation, Greece v. Ottomans pay-per-view spectacular, that might have made it a "demonstration sport". It looks like this just happened to be going on. It's no more of an unofficial Olympic competition than if some of the athletes played a game of croquet during their visit. Mandsford (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The unofficial tournament is mentioned in the article on Football at the Summer Olympics - to which I have added Goldblatt's book as a reference, and also added the citation from Mallon to show that it is unclear whether in fact the tournament ever took place. I now think that everything that needs to be said about this unofficial tournament which may or may not have existed is mentioned there, which means that I would go for a delete for this separate article. Robotforaday (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment FIFA and the British Olympic Association also mention attempts at Olympic football in 1896. I've seen mention elsewhere that an 1896 Olympic football tournament was scheduled but cancelled due to lack of participants, for example here. Unsure how to call this, having the information in Football at the Summer Olympics may be the way to go. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fratire

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

Delete nn neologism per WP:NEO#Reliable sources for neologisms - The article cited uses the term, but isn't about the term Mayalld (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, no reliable sources attesting to the term's wide use or acceptance. Lankiveil (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable neologism. Terraxos (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - opinions in the debate were split. There are ample secondary sources, see here, so there are no policy grounds to over-ride the lack of consensus to delete. It is relatively early in the event and a fresh debate, when matters have run their course, seems in order. TerriersFan (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Murder of Jana Shearer

I'm just not sure this is worth an article. Another murder, another Wikipedia article. But does the murder have any long-term notability outwith WP:NOT#NEWS? h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Totally offtopic, but the time I'm noticing above is 11:11, on 11/1/08. Now if that's not kinda weird...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, gruesome murders happen all the time, unfortunately. This one is not especially notable on that front. Lankiveil (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • RETAIN As well as the entry on Cannibalism, there is one on [[36]] and I came to this article looking for a more or less authoritative short piece of information about McCuin after reading via Drudge Report how PETA had amusingly suggested he be placed on a special vegetarian diet (as part of a publicity stunt, I presume). Cannibalism is also of perenial fascination for many (c.f. Hannibal The Cannibal etc). As a newbie I may be ignorant of certain rules but to me the sheer vigour of Wikipedia lies in it as a pretty reliable source on anything of note I want to look up... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.244.183 (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, for one thing, I'm not certain that any actual cannibalism took place in this case. He tried to cook parts of her body but I haven't heard anything yet suggesting that he actually tried to eat parts of her body.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Though this may be somewhat different than a "typical" murder, making an article is the first-on-the-block syndrome at work. If it's still on CNN and Fox next month, maybe it can come back. Mandsford (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This murder has attracted immense attention in Texas, and a google news search reveals approximately 1000 news articles. It is not Wikipedia's job to determine if the event itself is notable, the Texan community, the Midwest, and the news media has clearly placed the importance of this murder head and shoulder above the rest. The subject clearly exceeds all notability guidelines. EgraS (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not really "1000 news articles". I'll concede that a lot of newspapers may have reprinted the articles written, but that's true of a lot of news. Whether it will be big news next week, next month or next year is another matter. Mandsford (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That's exactly it. Different newspapers repeat the same stories... that's a fact.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Retain for a month or so, is what I think. At that point, if it's disappeared from CNN, then delete it. Up until then, as many people will come here to learn about it as will go to CNN, and it would be a disservice to remove it before they do. Cougar Draven (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete another murder in the news. not very notable. Unlikely to go much further, and again, just news. Reywas92Talk 04:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep this is as mentioned very much more than the usual murder. There's every reason to thin here will be continuing coverage. for one thing, the criminal will eventually be tried. DGG (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As sad as it is, I don't see anything incredibly unusual or notable about the case. If more findings were to arise in the next few months, I would agree with recreating it. Pinkadelica (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Australians Let Us Barbecue

Australians Let Us Barbecue (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No evidence is provided for this novelty song being notable - the references simply prove that it exists. I'm very tempted to nominate it for prod deletion as it appears to be a very clear cut case, but the fact that someone has gone to the trouble to create a page on this obscure looking song and an established editor has improved it after it was nominated for speedy deletion suggests that there might be some notability which I'm not aware of - this isn't the kind of music I have any knowledge of. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, a stellar 43 ghits for the album itself, and this looks like a non-notable gimmick song even in that context. If there's notability, it's pretty well hidden. Lankiveil (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete per nom and WP:MUSIC Orderinchaos 15:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable at all as far as I'm concerned. The only reason I improved it was because it was poorly written and included the copyrighted lyrics, and I didn't feel like letting another (what appeared to be at the time) appropriate article topic be lost because some drive-by speedy deletion tagger wanted it to go. I don't see any reason for this to be kept any longer. Spebi 20:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (but WP:CSD#G1 applies as well). --Angelo (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Wright (footballer)

Thomas Wright (footballer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I prodded this after a quick internet search showed no clear notability. Author rm prod without comment. Further research now strongly indicates NN. Should have CSD A7'ed it, shouldn't I?  —SMALLJIM  10:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as 1000000% non-notable ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Couldn't put it much better than ChrisTheDude. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per A7 (non-notability) and G1 (nonsense). AecisBrievenbus 11:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, "Well-known for his IQ of 164". Yeah. Lankiveil (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC).


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

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G11 (for the 8th time). Non-admin closure Pumpmeup 10:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Artevea

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

Article has been already deleted at least 5 times, User:CorenSearchBot tagged it with a possible copyvio VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 10:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per all previous criteria (G11 & G12). There is no need for it to be here, in future just tag articles for csd rather than waste a page on AfD. User has been reported to WP:AIV as a constant spammer. Pumpmeup 10:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 & Merge to Word processor. --VS talk 22:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Document statistics

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

Nom under WP:PN. Unencyclopedic, unsalvageable nonsense, that may be technically true but in no sense useful information. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, true, but not important or even interesting. Lots of programs can do lots of different things, and this isn't exactly a standout. Lankiveil (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Merge to Word processor.--NAHID 14:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Word processor. Useful and relevant at least as a section, even if it can never be expanded. NeonMerlin 19:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is a valid stub for a valid subject. May be improved; this is how articles start. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Canley (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Duggy Day

DJ Duggy Day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable individual, nom under WP:N. Searches for the subject bring up nothing to speak of other than his own website and his contributions to blogs. Article evidently self-created when viewing its history [37] [38] AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, notability is very unclear indeed. Lots of people have worked in multiple countries, but that doesn't mean they have articles here. Lankiveil (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete per nom Doc Strange (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete, the keep arguments are not very convincing as it did not address the isuse of notability for me. Although there are more keep votes than delete votes, the deletion policy favors the deletion of this article rather than keep, as the keep argument failed to convince me the notability of the subject by the standard set out by WP:N Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Filippella

  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. Happy editing!

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

Non-notable. Still a film student; prizes are not notable enough in their own right to confer notability on the subject, either. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Note to admins - Several of the contributors to this discussion have been accused of sockpuppetry.

  • Keep If someone can find a source for the awards. --RucasHost (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Sources have been added. He went back studying after winning International Festivals prizes and important awards. Also won the only Fulbright Award from Italy as best young Italian filmmaker. Directed and produced short films in Ireland (Northern Ireland Film Commission), Spain, Italy and USA --User:Lucky Luke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.62.203 (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Fulbright Award winners are not notable on that basis, nor are festival participants, regardless of the degree of international production they've participated in. The question is whether or not the filmmaker has been recognized as a notable figure by multiple, independent, and reliable sources. Period. From the editing history of the more notable contributor, this gives the appearance of a vanity article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)!
  • Keep He has also won 2 Philip Morris Awards, the Sergio Corbucci prize, the prestigious "Golden capitello" at "Sant'Agata dei Goti Film Festival", the Deviate Award in Northern Ireland, the Cultural and Diversity program Award, the Deviate project, RIFF Award, European Film Festival special mention in 2003, Fujii film prize in 2008 and many others. His films have been selected in many International Film Festivals. "Il Rigore piu' lungo del Mondo" was chosen as one of the 8 best student films in the world in 2004. He has also been invited to screen his works at the Fine Arts Theater in Beverly Hills for a special event and Q&A last July in 2007 where he got many positive reviews from well known journalists. In fact this page was created after that event. He has been interviewed many times and most recently by one of the oldest magazines of film in the industry (The business of film - note source reference on his profile and on IMDB) as one of the most promising young directors in Hollywood. Note official sources added on his profile. Trueart
    • Note to closing admin: COI issue - This user's contribution history shows him to actually be the subject of the article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Note to closing admin: COI issue - The user who created this page was omniarerum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueart (talk • contribs) 23:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete There's no evidence that the prizes are important. Precedent here is against considering Fulbright as sufficient for notability, and there's little else. DGG (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. None of his films passes the criteria of the Wikipedia:Notability (films) guideline. Per Wikipedia:Generally notable people we expect that creative professionals will meet one of the following:
  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  • The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
Winning student film awards does not give him recognition at the level we expect to see. Wait a few years for him to create a significant body of work that will receive a lot of attention from reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

*Keep He passes 2 of the main 3 criteria of the Wikipedia:Notability (films) guideline. He is known in the independent industry for his stylized filmmaking approach defined as Fantastic realism or Magic realism. Two of his short films have been made into feature films El Penalti más largo del mundo from Osvaldo Soriano's book and Thermae 2'40. Sources show multiple independent articles or reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.237.186 (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate of above IP. Avruchtalk 02:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Independent sources of sufficient depth and article passes 2 of the 3 criteria of the Wikipedia:Notability (films) guideline. Evidence and arguments presented for deletion are weak. Savonarola's judgmental reasons are personal, there is not neutral pov and the use of terms like "vanity" may cause real problems for the Foundation and should always be avoided in a deletion discussion as expressly indicated in wikipedia's deletion guide. Trueart (talk) 15;30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Already voted above. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Sources were added. Notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omniarerum (talk • contribs) 23:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit history indicates possible sock. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, the examples to compare are Teodoro Maniaci and Brook Silva-Braga; note the number of cites and the edit histories of each. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 10:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pu'a Tuiletufuga Hunkin

Pu'a Tuiletufuga Hunkin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Still unreferenced after almost a year, and no relevant Google hits. I prodded this in March, but my prod was removed to give the author a chance to add refs. Someone did add a reference in an edit summary to document the existence of Leuatea Sio, who is mentioned in the article - this is clearly not an adequate source for this article. Delete gadfium 08:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete I spent some time searching for this person, using several variants of the name and could find nothing that was not a mirror of this page. The nearest I got was this result from Google Books which is a one line mention of someone who might be a relative of this artist. Without any sources at all, it simply isn't possible to know whether this entry is a hoax or a real person. Given the length of time this article has been tagged, I don't hold out much hope that sources will be found. Therefore we must delete, with no prejudice against recreation if sources can be found. Gwernol 09:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above, verification is not possible at this point. If reliable sources can be found, then by all means recreate. Lankiveil (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete - I was the edittor that removed the PROD and tagged the article with UNREF. It's been a almost a year now and no references have been added to establish notability. The sole reference which is mentioned in an edit sumary is not even about the subject of this article. My own searches turn up no reliable sources either. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete- per others and the author himself. Λua∫Wise (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
comment - the author is User:Fatugalelei who has not participated in this AFD discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The above "per author" may refer to the discussion at Talk:Pu'a Tuiletufuga Hunkin, but that was primarily a plea to keep the article while saying that sources were hard to find online.-gadfium 00:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A lack of references means that this article (apparently) cannot be verified. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This does raise another question related to the AfD process. That cultural/national groups with limited written histories, or oral traditions are likely to be forever underrepresented in articles on wikipedia, relative to those who wrote and catalogued their history. I'm not sure there's any way around it. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 10:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dyertrini

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

Lack of notability, and possible conflict of interest based on user's alias Wisdom89 (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - as per nom, WP:N, WP:COI and WP:VANITY why not? Xdenizen (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - though if sources can be found I'd change but I think they won't be forthcoming. Record label or charts anyone? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC. A perfectly fine candidate for CSD A7, if you ask me. Lankiveil (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete, as per nom. Qwerty (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. May I just point out that use of the shortcut "WP:VANITY" is discouraged on WP:AGF terms. Bondegezou (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. --VS talk 22:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tessa West

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

Adult performer nominated for a single award, I'm unable to confirm the meaning/importance of the reference to hosting duties, this individual seems to approach but not meet WP:PORNBIO/notability requirements. Repeatedly speedied and recreated, I suggest SALT if the closing admin decides upon deletion. Accounting4Taste:talk 08:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • New starlet of the year is one of the biggest nominations a new preformer can achieve. Expecially since it was only after 4 months or 7 movie releases, please referance:
  • Comment. So, since she does seem to be a serious nominee for this Xbiz award (per the press release in the article, not the blog post above), I guess the question comes down to how "well known" the Xbiz awards are? Are they well known enough to conform to WP:Pornbio? I would point out that the guideline doesn't say the award needs to be notable, only "well known". This is rather far outside my range, so I really can't judge. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 11:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment XBiz Awards only in its second year (sic it's in its sixth year) and is not not very well known to the public, I think. This is also the first year for performer categories such as Best New Starlet. So the nomination isn't as 'serious' as say for the AVN Awards for now. Vinh1313 (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment xbiz is the 2nd biggest award show under avn- youcan go to xbiz.com to read more
here is another source about herwww.naked-paper.com
she also has worked for penthouse,playboy , and foxx magazine with in the past months and should be released in the coming months per her forum board on freeones.com
http://board.freeones.com/search.php?searchid=13868290
you can see she has over 300,000 viewers and is rising
there has been alot of issues with avn and it will not be popular in the coming years-
all the qualification say is it needs to be " well known" to the adult world it is very well known and its not so much the award itself its the fact she was nominated for anything - shot for well known co. all with in 4 months Who decides what is good or well known enough? Try asking peolpe like Tony Batman or Wankus that are heavily involved in the adult scene- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.86.58 (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails wp:bio. Award is brand new and relatively unknown. All sources for Tessa are either self-published, press releases, or are trivial coverage. Vinh1313 (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not trying to argue just simply frustrated and yes i am talking on the link you provided as well. Sammi rhodes for example is on wikipedia for awhile now and just now- 2 weeks ago won an award at avn- It is an accomplishment and credible in itself to be nominated for the first ever new female starlet award at the xbiz awards- also all done with in 4 months all everyone else against her is a contract star- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.86.58 (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Shyla stylez is also on wikiapedia and she has no awards or nominations just drama —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.86.58 (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment You should check Shyla Stylez again. You shouldn't question another article's notability to defend Tessa's. The only thing you may accomplish is getting both deleted. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. An interesting discourse - and certainly somewhat novel in that it incorporates the comments of the subject (whose opinion I also welcomed during establishing my view of the consensus - welcome aboard)--VS talk 22:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Q. Schmidt (actor)

Michael Q. Schmidt (actor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod, questions about this actor's notability. Procedural nomination. UsaSatsui (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep He has been in over 200 film and television projects and seems to backed up by references. Appeared in numerous notable films. Can't see the problem here. M♠ssing Ace 09:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete unless primary claim to notability, playing the Mountain Troll in the Harry Potter series, can be confirmed by independent coverage. The rest of this is just puffery for minor and fleeting roles. --Dhartung | Talk 10:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, seems to be nothing more than a moderately successful bit-part actor. Lankiveil (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete - Vanity page was created by Schmidt and edited by his sockpuppets to bolster his claims of notability. Article was being maintained solely with promotional material using almost entirely original research in violation of WP:AUTO, WP:OR, WP:SPAM and WP:ADVERT. Information in article is almost identical to that on his IMDB page and most of the references cited are to his personal website in violation of WP:V and WP:RS. This is one of a number of spam articles created by these accounts to promote this actor and it should be deleted first as spam and second to discourage others from using Wikipedia as a marketing vehicle for their acting resume. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Somewhat notable actor with reprising roles in several shows. See article's talk page for further information (no need to put it all here). I concur this article was initially added and updated by a registered sock and in violation of WP:ADVERT, but that doesn't make the information inaccurate. Additionally, subsequent edits have made put this article IAW WP policy and guidelines.131.44.121.252 (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC) (BQZip01)
  • This information is entirely promotional in nature. You have not yet provided a reason for keeping this article other than your belief that the article isn't inaccurate because it hasn't been proven so. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Many articles about an object have sources that are from a personal website. As long as they are not controversial or inaccurate, the basic facts are certainly citable from that source. It certainly could use more sources to make it better, but that is not a requirement of WP:DEL. Furthermore, I did provide other reasons on the talk page of the article and felt it very pointy to duplicate that information here, so I gave a reference. It is that simple. Please try not to read too much into my disagreement. — BQZip01 — talk 21:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Played regular characters on several TV shows, Appeared on Jimmy Kimmel live, Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, and Distraction. Many minor roles in movies. Why is this even up for AfD? If there is a problem with the tone of the article, fix it, but there's no question this is notable. Torc2 (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Schmidt has said he hired a publicity company to write this article and now requests that it be deleted. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That's sad, but kind of irrelevant. Whatever conflict occurred in the past needs to stay there. At the absolute minimum, we know that Schmidt is notable, and that's enough reason to keep an article on him. The contents can be worked out on the article itself. Hopefully editors will treat the material with some dignity, since minor wikicrimes shouldn't prejudice Wiki's article about somebody against them. Torc2 (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not belong here on this page, but feel I need to make a progress report. Please keep in mind that since the article is about me, my every word is suspect. I can not be expected to have NPOV because of COI. However, Cumulus Clouds and I have been having a very reasonable discussion on my talk page (feel free to visit) where he has granted that I may be notable enough to have an article on me remain on Wiki and that the article now being considered for deletion is not the same article he sent here. In his supporting the tenets of Wiki in the strongest way possible, he kept editing the article, even though he was sure it would be deleted anyway, and unfortunately turned the article something which would be a total embarrasment to Wiki. We both agreed that editors trying to confirm any possible worth would have had to check the edit hitory of the article itself and then spend all kinds of time trying to compare earlier and later versions... and it would be quite time-consuming. I am grateful that he has agreed to restore the article to what it was the day it was introduced to AfD as an aid to editors here. I have concurred with him that if editors here at AfD feel the original article was non-notable, that I would be happy to have it go.. and if editors here felt the original version did have some worth, I was willing to have it stay. I do not know when the article will be restored (however tenperary). Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Sheesh, man, you have as much right to be here as anyone. It's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, remember? Don't worry about expressing your opinions (you're more than welcome), and don't worry about us not taking into account that you're the article's subject (we will). --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I said those portions could be restored with references for each of the statements being made. This is the only way to prevent it from violating any of the guidelines I cited. I see that much of the unsourced information has been returned and it is my intention to remove anything without a source in this article if it survives this AfD. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Why don't you calm down and let sources come to the article when they're ready? This one is already in better shape than many other articles. Honestly, you can't go 5 words without a citation, which at least shows a good faith effort is being made. I think you need a break from this. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Concur with UsaSatsui. There is no need to rush this and the article's neutrality (despite its beginnings) seems to be improving dramatically. — BQZip01 — talk 21:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
          • There's 11 citations, but some of them don't even mention Schmidt; having glanced through half of them, besides the IMDB link, the most information on Schmidt we have is a sentence in "Let's Paint TV celebrates its sixth anniversary!" That's the type of pointless citations that almost prove non-notability.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for allowing me to comment. I am in the unfortunate positon of having the full attention of one very centered and extremely determined editor. Certainly there must be more important issues to deal with on Wiki than me. I fail to understand his continued interest in wishing to reduce my life to 2 or 3 disjointed or humilating sentences... in his creating a singular reality where, when he first declares something as non-notable or trivial, he may then de-construct it to make it appear to be excatly what he first claimed. I found a definition on wiki... dealing with the falseness of circular logic.... where one may state fact "A" and then remove all items that are not fact "A" in order to prove only fact "A". Is this not just the least bit self-serving and contrary to the wiki principles of NPOV and COI?
  • I am not the one who can answer this question... as the article he promises to continue de-constructing, even should it survive his having it placed in AfD in the first place, is of me ("...it is my intention to remove anything without a source in this article if it survives this AfD")... but does this mean if the article says I am an American, he has to have a copy of my passport or birth certificate? Or when the article states that I modeled for numerous facilities throughout Southern California or that I worked with artists at Disney and DreamWorks and Sony, that each sentence has to be accompanied by notarized paystubs? The fact that I appeared in a number of television shows was documeted and linked to these works at IMDb, but they had been removed (but now replaced) as well. I admit a great deal of confusion. If someone promises to remove anything that is unsourced... and has themselves shown a prior history of first removing sources and then waiting and then removing the (now) unsourced informations... where does it end? Again, and dispite protestations to the contrary or quoting of wiki guidelines in a self-serving manner to support his actions... the continued actions themselves speak even much loudly and more pointedly. I am learning... Wikipedia:Vandalism, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. No pointed malice in these actions....? I would like to be able to Wikipedia: Deny recognition but it has become too blatant Wikipedia:What is a troll?.
  • Here's a real hoot.... In reading the related article Wikipedia:Vandals versus Trolls, in the subsection "Identification and solutions", I found a comparison of 2 samples of editorial contribution... the first as being an unsourced flat statement that had been added and deleted several times as being vandalism, and the second showing that same information being returned, in proper context and with with proper cites so as to remain unquestioned. This example seemed strangely familar... something I had read earlier... so if anyone wants to have a really good chuckle at the strange twists of the universe... imagine my own surprise when I tracked it down and learned that the "good" edit was one made by someone from the L.L.King group on December 20. It does tend to put things in perspective... in that the good people do might sometimes survive the bad done by others... MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • To Cumulus Clouds:
My friends and associates Tom Arnold, John Goodman, Dan Akroyd, Jack Black, Patton Oswalt... and many, many others... all have their filmology and television projects listed in their artcles on Wikipedia, even though that same information is also on IMDB. It is included so as to be useful to Wikipedia readers. Having their informations here adds to the informative quality of their articles and acts to further the readers understanding. You removed all filmology and television from the article about me. I believe this was a bad faith edit. I ask that you undo your deletion and so reflect the true editorial policies of Wikipedia in this instance... and return the informations you removed from the article about me. The information was proper. The information was sourced. And it was informative.. all the things Wikipedia stives to be. I believe your removal is really a bit of a quibble... not keeping good faith with the spirit of Wikipedia... and yet one more attempt to de-construct the atrticle to make it as non-notable as you keep wanting it to be. Why are you so interested in making me a laughing stock here? In light of all the other articles on Wiki about actors, and the informations thet include, your deletion can in no way be defended as reflective of policy or guideline. Please return it. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. As someone who has no interest in this article at all (I have never heard of Michael Q. Schmidt or user Cumulus Clouds, rarely watch films, have no tv, and live on a different continent) let me just suggest the truth is probably somewhere in between. The actions of Cumulus Clouds do not look to me as if they are necessarily wrong when seen in isolation. I don't know about our usual practice in this area, but it seems logical that only a very small minority of actors are sufficiently notable that Wikipedia should have an extensive filmography. So an editor who is in a hurry may be justified to remove an extremely long filmography altogether, when it's not easy to establish what is actually relevant. It is also true that there is a general problem with references to self-published sources. Cumulus Clouds removed them, citing WP:AUTO as a reason, which is sort of justified when read in conjunction with WP:COI. This kind of source may be used but is generally discouraged. Using these sources is far from being a non-controversial edit, and here they were used to substantiate the kind of claim that would be easy to spin (meeting with artists) or to fake (200) with impunity even by a relatively well-known person. WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest applies here, especially the subsection "Primacy of basic content policies" and its last sentence.

However, it also seems clear that Cumulus Clouds is much more interested in deleting this article in retaliation for spamming than in communicating with its subject. In a sense that's a COI for this article. The best procedure would be to handle it as such. I think (s)he should also reread WP:POINT, WP:AGF and WP:BITE. And of course WP:MASTODON. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • comment - What I know of this leads me to agree with the above. I think the first priority is to settle this AfD and then figure out how to work on the article. At the very least, the roles Schmidt seems notable enough that there is no doubt we should keep some form of the article on him. Even when entirely NPOV and sourced, the article will not look much different than it does now, so we should keep it and address the problems as content issues instead of keep/delete article issues. Torc2 (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Some good advice here, Mike. That section was way too long anyways. As I mentioned on my talk page, I was probably gonna chainsaw it down myself (I've been holding off on it because I want to see if we pass AFD first). Calm down a bit. There's no rush. And also keep in mind that the article will change, possibly in ways you don't like, and so long as there's no libel or invasion of privacy involved, there's not much you can do except what we can all do: work towards consensus and come up with a solution (something a certain involved party seems hell-bent on not doing, for the record). --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Excellent advice UsaSatsui! How about putting his filmography in a collapsable box? That way it is available for anyone interested, but it doesn't clutter up the page? — BQZip01 — talk 21:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete; the claim that he's been in over 200 film and TV projects isn't backed up by IMDB; they list 105 appearances, or about 60 if you list each TV series as just one. The credited appearance with the most votes is in 18 Fingers of Death, with 288 votes, in which he is "Buttcrack Guy", apparently not a major role. Next up is Skid Marks (film), with 78 votes, where he plays "The Very Indignant Jogger", again, apparently not a major role. (Though it may be his most major part, as 78 votes is pre-release.) He was a model for the Mountain Troll in Harry Potter and in the background of Because I Said So, and played a bit part in a number of minor movies; I don't see it as notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll be happy to double check, but I think his website lists more, but was removed as a non-reliable source. I contend this simple fact is not controversial and Mr. Schmidt would have little incentive to lie. As such the resource can stay (furthermore, simply stating "he claims more than 200 credits..." might be more accurate then anyway. Also, IMDB may not have a complete listing. There are plenty of reasons. As for the IMDB with the "most votes", that just means the most people voted on it, not that most people liked it (IMDB is a repository of information, not a fan site, per se). As for your delete, that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. Thanks for the feedback. — BQZip01 — talk 21:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not a simple fact; counts of things like that can vary greatly depending on what you count. I'm not accusing him of lying, but he certainly has motivation to be generous in what he counts. Yes, the vote count means that the most people voted on it; that's likely to correlate between films of the same era and country to gross popularity and hence notability. Virtually nobody has seen most of these movies.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] San francisco studio school

San francisco studio school (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school. No sources of any kind cited, unable to verify. Only a handful of relevant Google hits, most of them trivial mentions or directory listings. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, not a notable education institution (or is it programme? I can't tell from the article). Lankiveil (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete NN. --RucasHost (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I know WP:SCL is not officially in effect, but this article fails all current potential interpretations of it! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 03:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Martian Successor Nadesico as completely unsourced and in violation of WP:FICT; such content should not be merged. Sandstein (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ND-001 Nadesico

ND-001 Nadesico (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fancruft. SeizureDog (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable outside of the obscure anime series it appears in. Fails WP:FICTION. Lankiveil (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Merge into Martian Successor Nadesico I'm a fan of Martian Successor Nadesico and i take semi-offense on you calling it obscure (it aired on Cartoon Network fer chrissakes!) This article is about the main ship in the anime. I think the best thing is to merge it into the article about the series. Doc Strange (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete pure WP:OR and completely unreferenced. Excessive fancruft level detail of dubious factual accuracy. Collectonian (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge per Doc Strange, or redirect to the main series article 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge or Redirect per Doc Strange. Information about main ship can not be deleted. Keep the history of page for save data. Zerokitsune (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Doc Strange. Edward321 (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advanced Energy Research Organization

Advanced Energy Research Organization (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company. Makes no claim of notability and sounds like an advertisement for said company. G-hits seem to be mostly advertisement blurbs and bios for people who work there. Redfarmer (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I obtained a copy of the previously deleted version of this article. Perhaps someone other than myself will take the time to combine the two. __meco (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Being a research organization, a Wikipedia article would hardly be self-serving. The notable with AERO is that it is the latest development of the work of Dr. Steven Greer and has a unique strategy how to get environmentally friendly technologies out to benefit the masses. People having done their homework pertaining alternatives to energy generation will know this, and I believe it is an important subject to be up to date on. If your (moderators) minds change about this entry, I will make it a complete article meeting Wikipedia standards. Livinggoldtree (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 06:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete first, this article does not cite any independent, reliable sources to support any claim to notability it may have, or to allow any of the basic facts to be verified. The only sources are to the AERO site which is hardly independent of the subject of this article. Turning to the site itself, it is a pseudoscience conspiracy site of the worst sort. It claims that "secret government black operations" teams have secret anti-gravity and perpetual motion machines. "Dr Greer" is offering a "prize" for anyone who can develop a perpetual motion machine or anti-gravity machine. Its a scam and the only reason for this article is to promote this (at best) badly misguided person. Wikipedia should absolutely not be allowing itself to be used to lend a false air of legitimacy to such nonsense. Gwernol 10:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable both as a company, and (as pointed out above) as a crank group. Lankiveil (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC).


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 10:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chulip

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

Unimportant fancruft that's taking up the namespace which Chulip (video game) should occupy. SeizureDog (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete, maybe a hatnote at the top of Chulip (video game) directing readers to Martian Successor Nadesico when that article is moved over. Hiding T 12:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 01:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adam (cat)

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

Non-notable animal. Fails WP:N and the spirit of WP:BIO1E. Jfire (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Remarkably non-notable, doesn't seem to meet WP:RS. I see articles get speedied every day that have more reason to remain than this. Accounting4Taste:talk 08:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, a WP:HOLE case. Punkmorten (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly, this cat is an important figure in the Santa Rosa area. The editors left out a couple important links: Adam's Corner at Forgotten Felines] (included, but mistitled), Petition to the D.A., The D.A.'s Response, and another pro-Adam site. Thomasmallen (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, a single cruel act against an animal does not confer notability. WP:NOT#NEWS. --Dhartung | Talk 10:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, cruelty against animals is sadly all too common. Poor Adam is not notable in that respect. Lankiveil (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete -- nothing particularly notable about this case to warrant an encyclopedia article. Additional note: this was a disputed prod. Editor who removed the prod tag gave this as the reason for doing so: "Fail. No witty jokes or comments. Just fail." -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 14:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm sure that Adam is a very good kitty, and I'm glad he survived, but not many cats are notable enough to have an entry here. Morris the Cat is probably one of the very few exceptions to the rule. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As per above reasons, and article is non-notable. Ohmpandya (Talk) 22:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. We don't have an article on Andrex the piglet, although he made the national news [39], nor on - er - a couple of the more notorious examples of this type of abuse that I'll refrain from mentioning - and Adam, cute though he may be, hasn't achieved the same level of notability. Tevildo (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Everyone except the Thomas dude is a idiot. Go do your damn research. If he's not notabl;e, then go delete all pages of kidnapped children. He's just as notable, if not more notable, as them. Keep. Sokuri (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I would support the deletion of all such articles. Being victim of a crime is not automatic grounds for notablilty. Tevildo (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I would like to remind you at this time, Sokuri, that we have a policy here at Wikipedia to not make any personal attacks, and by extension, calling everyone involved with the AFD for this article an idiot, such as what you did above. Calling me and everyone else an idiot will not prove your point, and won't win people to your side. Also, I feel it prudent to refer you to WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - just because of the abducted children (which you don't cite, by the way) are on here, doesn't mean the cat should be. Unless you can prove notability of this feline, my !vote stands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete by Fabrictramp. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flash Trek 2

Flash Trek 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Flash game. Prod contested on the grounds that this is the "only game with entire in-game universe, many NPCs, via Flash" - first, I doubt this game is entirely unique in that respect; second, none of this is a substitute for third-party coverage, which doesn't appear to exist. This article doesn't even name the author. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable flash game, no independent sources about the game, etc etc. Lankiveil (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete NN. --RucasHost (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. hold on a second, friends and colleagues. Who says this game isn't unique? It consists of several unique components. one is a complex game interface with multiple game functions. another is multiple in-game universe features, including star systems and NPCs. Also, players have a variety of races and ships to play as. basically, it is like an entire PC game, in a browser-based Flash game. And furthermore, it is a significant entry in a long line of Star trek simulator games, a sub-genre which stretches back to the earliest days of mainframe-based computing. hope you will consider this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Uniqueness or merits of subject are not very important when it comes to deletion discussions. If it's a good game, who says so? If nobody worth mentioning has said so, then it must be deleted. --Kjoonlee 17:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 14:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete a scan of the search results from google provided not one reliable soure. The vast majority of flash games will never pass notability unless there is a substantial increase in the amount of reliable sites reviewing them. Someoneanother 14:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
hmmm, good point. anyone want to start a new website with me? :-) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Bear in mind there are sites out there, such as Jay Is Games, which deal with flash/browser/casual/odd games, and several others like Game Tunnel which may be interested in writing reviews. The question is, is the game capable of catching their attention? If so, there's nothing stopping anyone sweetly asking these sites if they'd review it. Jay's has a game submission form for this purpose and seems to have taken on more reviewers recently. Someoneanother 12:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your great suggestion. that's very helpful. I will try that. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I would say that onlineflashgames, addictinggamesdb, and flashportal are major games sites. I do't understand how you would excpect a reliable source for a flash game. I have noticed that many Miniclip games that are not so popular have detailed explanations, I don't quite understand why this aritcle shouldn't either. ⊕Assasin Joe talk 16:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I would expect a reliable source for anything if it's the subject of an article on WP, we're a tertiary source and need secondary sources to produce articles, hence why when you're creating articles you get Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted. Online Flash Games does not provide any information, it just offers the game for play, I couldn't find the game on Addicting Games DB but clicking on other games just brings up a couple of sentences about them. That doesn't cut it. As far as Miniclip games are concerned, they're subject to the same guidelines and if they don't measure up they could be here on AFD at any point. Someoneanother 18:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your clerefication. ⊕Assasin Joe talk 19:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Although this flash game might not have much reliable sources, this is an encyclopedia, so flash game content can be included for readers who would like to learn more about the game. ⊕Assasin Joe talk 16:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Life_(TV_series)#Principal_Characters.Tikiwont (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Crews

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

non-notable character from a tv series. This article is also written 100% in-universe. Ridernyc (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Redirect, but who am I, who are you? who is anyone? are names really important? is my opinon really more important than anyone else's? are opinions important? perhaps because we ask these things, they are, but that assumes the questions asking the questions are important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.207.240 (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Weak Keep, From the article, he appears to be a mainstay character in the TV-series. Could do with more references -Rustam 07:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Can I ask for a chance to improve this article? Or anyone who can help expand it is also welcome. Isagrimorie (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If you can find sources that are not primary sources and add real world context to this article then sure. However considering how new the show is I doubt there are any sources to add real world context to this article, See WP:FICT even though it's contested it still has a very good explanation of what is required by WP:PLOT. Ridernyc (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect If this show manages to last over a season, then maybe individual characters will be notable.Kww (talk) 16:01, 3 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 05:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep or merge - is the main character but the original page itself is only 9kb. A newstand or local library would help with 3rd party content for sure. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. Character is not notable outside of his own fictional universe. Lankiveil (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Maybe we can just keep this as a stub? Isagrimorie (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was decompose. Sandstein (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of political composers

List of political composers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article gives no context, criteria for inclusion is unclear, and justification for any of the individual composers listed is nonexistent. Tagith (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, irrelevant grouping of people. Also OR. Punkmorten (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, very vague and fuzzy criteria for inclusion, questionable usefulness, and maybe just a spicy hint of OR as well. Lankiveil (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete Exceptionally fuzzy I'd say, but the article has already admitted as much: "This page tries to list some composers whose works are related to politics." Emeraude (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Where is Ludwig van Beethoven, who retitled his third symphony in disgust after Napoleon crowned himself Emperor? Just about any composer attached to a royal court, like for instance Jean-Baptiste Lully, might be called a political composer; they composed pieces commemorating state occasions, like Lully's grand motet Plaude Lætare Gallia. There needs to be an article defining the subject first before a list can be supported. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Mostly an indiscriminate list, with only a few explanations, and no sources. Mandsford (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above, especially Smerdis of Tlön. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Keep. --VS talk 22:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nokia 6610i

Nokia 6610i (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable commercial product; just another cell phone. Insufficient references exist to support a Wikipedia article that is not a review or an advert. Wikipedia is not a cell phone directory. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, it's a mobile phone. No real notability demonstrated, nor any independent non-trivial sources that are not simply product reviews. Lankiveil (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Keep, it's a mobile phone from the world's leading manufacturer of same and the world has certainly noticed it: Google News Colonel Warden (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No notability suggested. The sets should mentioned in an overview list. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia does have information on mobiles. If you delete this it'll leave a red link on the template; if you really think wikipedia shouldn't have phone info you should get to the core of the matter rather then picking off individual articles.--Him and a dog 21:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Templates can easily be edited. An article that has incoming links is not immune from deletion. -- Mikeblas (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
      • How? I've never figured out how to do that. But still, in this case if you did that it would leave a big gap in the template for anyone who knows this phone exists.--Him and a dog 12:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Here's how. Some templates have edit buttons built-in. The "Nokia phones" template is one such template; if you click the little letter "e" in the header bar of the template, you'll be taken to the editor page for the template. Many templates don't have this link. For templates that don't (and, even, for templates that do), you can figure it out:
  1. Edit the article and find the template. Scrolling around in this article, we find the {{Nokia phones}} template.
  2. Search to the name of the template: "template:Nokia phones". (Just type that into the "search" control on the left, and hit "Go".)
  3. Edit it!
And there you go. Editing templates is like editing articles, mostly. Templates also have a bunch of macros and substitutions and stuff -- something like a little macro language. See Wikipedia:Template namespace for notes about it. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --VS talk 22:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nokia 7250

Nokia 7250 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable commercial product; just another cell phone. Insufficient references exist to support a Wikipedia article that is not a review or an advert. Wikipedia is not a cell phone directory. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, it's a mobile phone. No real notability demonstrated, nor any independent non-trivial sources that are not simply product reviews. Lankiveil (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Keep Seems to be even more notable than the 6610i: Google news Colonel Warden (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Please read WP:WAX. The 6610i is irrelevant; please focus on the subject of this article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. WP should not serve as product catalog. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Colonel Warden. 23.2M regular Ghits is btw rather impressing. Greswik (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I also agree with Colonel Warden - maybe it just needs a picture and stub for now (to add to the spec sheet) Dj stone (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Question. A picture? How does a picture establish notability, or reference any of the claims made in the article? -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry - I didn't mean the picture would establish notability - just that it might help the article since it was basically a spec sheet... Dj stone (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment. Spec sheets have pictures, too. So do {{advert}}s. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep- I think it deserves to be included in WP, although it does not establish notability. Λua∫Wise (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep- there is a standard set already, phone models have articles.--Him and a dog 21:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 for better or for worse, policy trumps consensus in these situations and it's clear that WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLP1E, has been violated in this case gaillimhConas tá tú? 13:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maria Lauterbach

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

Keep Deletion proposed by Arbeit Sockenpuppe, who gave the reason: "NN bio". This is a user that claims to be an administrator, although nobody knows that for sure. That user added a prod tag, although from the sources and references in the article it is clear that this is not an NN bio. I erased the prod tag, and added the afd tag. I don't want this article to be deleted, but I certainly don't want it to be deleted because of the prod tag without any discussions. Quoth nevermore (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment There was no need to create an AfD since the article has a PROD tag on it. But since the AfD has been removed, would it be acceptable to remove the PROD? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Arbeit Sockenpuppe is the account of User:Y for use when he is at work. James086Talk | Email 07:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - While it has plenty of sources, it seems to be more of a news article than an encyclopedia article. See point 5 of WP:NOT#NEWS and the second paragraph of WP:N#TEMP. If this turns into a large controversy it should be kept however. James086Talk | Email 07:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing to make an encyclopedia article out of here, at the moment this belongs on Wikinews (if it belongs anywhere). BLACKKITE 08:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough. And if Wikipedia is not for news articles, then we should delete articles about all missing people as well. Including Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Taylor Behl, Natalee Holloway, etc. --Adi Sinaga (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment See WP:ALLORNOTHING. Arguing that this is not a notable missing persons topic is certainly possible to do in good faith, particularly given the lack of consensus or guidelines regarding such articles. --Dhartung | Talk 10:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep certainly the subject of plenty of 3rd party coverage. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I'm not convinced of the long-term importance here, but there has been quite a bit of national attention paid to the story due to the military angle. Regardless of outcome it is likely to end up as a high-profile UCMJ case of some kind. --Dhartung | Talk 10:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article should be expanded with information about the suspect(s), the rape, her condition, possible abuse of women in the military, and so on. Amputation (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and per our inability to write a biography of this person because her life was uninteresting. If he disappearance/potential death are notable events (which they could be), let's delete this and include a mention on the relevant army article, or perhaps on MWWS#Possible_instances_of_MWWS, where she is already listed. This is an encyclopedia, and we report on things of interest to the civilization, not on last week's crime victims. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Every person on that list has their own article. Angrymansr (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Then please start afd's on all of them instead of constantly pointing to an essay and telling everyone the crap is out there. We can start by deleting every missing or murdered white female from Wikipedia who was not famous, as well as people like:
  • Rodney King, he is known for one thing, being beat up by police
  • Abner Louima, also known for one thing, being sodomized
  • Monica Lewinsky, we all know her one event
  • Jena 6, they just jumped a kid. That happens every day in NYC.
  • Latoyia Figueroa, non-white woman who went missing and later found murdered
  • Tamika Huston, see above
  • Jessica Lynch, Lori Piestewa & Shoshana Johnson captured during Iraq invasion

I look forward to participating in the cited articles Afd nominations. Please leave me a message when the Afd's begin so I can get my popcorn ready. By the time we delete all of the so-called crap all we'll be left with is the beloved Pokemon characters. Good luck! Angrymansr (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there's no need to get testy, but you only said that to avoid answering his question. How about all those articles he mentioned? --Reklamedame (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. BLP concerns and the fact that this is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Quale (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep With BLP no longer a concern, I don't see the difference between this and anything Adi Sinaga cited. If it's sourceable, it usually ends up being notable as well. We get so wrapped up in policy, that it becomes counter-productive. WP:Ignore all rules Angrymansr (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:MWF. Thatcher 19:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, Notable enough for me.--Joebengo (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There are other instances, such as the case of Suzanne Marie Collins which are similar in nature and this one is perhaps even a larger issue since she was pregnant and allegedly murdered by another Marine. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep If you delete this, you might as well delete Laci Peterson and every other murder victim that gains national attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.119.122 (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep The national attention she's received makes her notable. Phobophile (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO, unless we ammend that guideline to include every missing/murdered white woman who causes a temporary media sensation in the 24 hour news cycle of the United States. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Since there will be a (non-military) murder trial in the criminal courts (which itself will be a notable Wikipedia article), there will be a need for this article to be kept. Thanks!--Inetpup (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep oodles of third party coverage, agree with Inetpup on the fact of the court case and the large amount of national attention Doc Strange (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Classic WP:BLP1E. If this unfortunate death shows some signs of longterm notability then create Maria Lauterbach murder. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Plus, it also falls into line of the Category:Murdered pregnant women. Murder being the number one reason for deaths of Pregnant women in the U.S. 1,800 are killed every year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hourick (talk • contribs) 01:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Does that mean that they all get articles, or just the pretty white ones? youngamerican (wtf?) 19:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • For the first two, I would point to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and, for Hoffa, he clearly meets WP:BIO for his work as a union boss. However tragic this might be, Lauterbach is just a person known for going missing and having the case sensationalized by the media. youngamerican (wtf?) 19:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I figured that someone would say something about Holloway before Sjodin. Anyway, this discussion should really stick to the facts about this and only this article, but I'll still respond... I see nothing regarding her inclusion worthiness except for being a well-publicized murder victim who happened to be the case du jour when Congress finally got around to passing a popular election year law. In her case, a redirect to the article on the law would be the best bet. But, yea, until a law is passed in honor of Lauterbach, Sjodin still has more notoriety than Lauterbach. youngamerican (wtf?) 04:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Dru should definitely be two sentences in the article about the registry and a redirect thereto. I would vote for that. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It's impossible at this moment to make a pronouncement regarding the long-term notability of this incident, but right now, it's evident that there has been nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. We need to be on guard in editing the article, to eliminate BLP issues, however. --SSBohio 23:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Plenty of coverage from reliable sources shows she is notable, at least for the time being. This can always be brought back to AfD later, but right now I don't see any question about notability. Terraxos (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I would note, however, that Death of Maria Lauterbach (or something similar) would probably be a better title. Terraxos (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep; she's the center of a national news story and brewing military scandal that's getting daily and ongoing attention by nationwide media outlets. -- Sethant (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It seems now that the killer is one of the Marines. This has big repercussions about how women are treated in the US military, and whether cases of rape have been covered up in the past. As the story goes on, this article might be moved to another more appropriate title, but not deleted. --Reklamedame (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 re-creation of deleted content. Contrary to the nomination, this article was properly tagged, on 2008-01-02 by EEMIV (talk · contribs), when discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire (2nd nomination). This article was re-created by Jecowa (talk · contribs) 29 hours after its deletion by Bongwarrior (talk · contribs), by copying and pasting the Google cache of the old page, claiming that in the edit summary that xe "copied verbatim from source licensed under the GFDL". (Copying GFDL content requires more than that. Please read the Text of the GNU Free Documentation Licence.) Xe later removed a request that this be re-deleted per the prior AFD discussion with the edit summary "nominate for deletion". Uncle G (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moff

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

This page was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire (2nd nomination) but not properly tagged. It consists of in-universe discussion and repeated plot summary without any real world context. Though sources exist for Grand Moff Tarkin, for instance, there is nothing to show notability for this particular concept. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 (author blanked) by User:Metropolitan90, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Man-Woman Impossibility Theorem

Man-Woman Impossibility Theorem (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unverifiable, hoax. Deprodded. Accurizer (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Shouldn't this be on the speedy deletion list? It's quite obviously a joke. So, yeah delete if you want it in bold. Scythe33 (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sonny (robot)

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

Contested speedy, contested prod. Entirely in-universe, no potential for expansion. Currently just a plot story, nothing that isn't already in I, Robot (film), nothing worth merging. Consensus on talk page seems to be in favour of deletion. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom because everything in the article is already mentioned in the I, Robot article. Kyriakos (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

delete why cover him when do not cover the other characters. This movie is not notable enough for it's character's to have article.YVNP (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't even fully reiterate the significance of Sonny. The page feels incomplete.--Ye Olde Luke (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, almost entirely a plot summary concerning a character not notable outside of the I, Robot film. Fails WP:FICTION. Lankiveil (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I tend to disagree with the others since WP has numerous articles about fictional creatures and character appearing in other shows (e.g Charmed among others)and since these articles are for some reason kept on WP because their shows are famous,Why Should We Delete This One? and may I add that this character is important to the plot of the film and is heavily featured. Λua∫Wise (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toy Break

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

Procedural nom as Prod removed November 2007. Does not meet WP:WEB and lacks WP:RS reliable sources for verifiability. Was borderline Speedy on this one, but thought it best to Afd just to be sure it's more than G7. Breno talk 03:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2005 Kusadasi bus bombing. The history of the article has not been deleted. While I saw nothing to merge personally, given the brevity of information on other victims, it would not be inappropriate to merge some of the material provided that the merger is properly handled as per WP:MERGE. In the event of such a merger, of course, the history of this article must be retained for GFDL compliance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tara Whelan

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Tara Whelan Articles for deletion/Tara Whelan (2nd nomination)

Delete (at a minimum Redirect/merge briefly with names of other victims to 2005 Kusadasi bus bombing) - there are no substantive reasons for her article to remain. The main proponent (User:Spaingy) for keeping the article has since been indefinitely blocked. It is pure racism to allow her to remain just because of her nationality, when being a victim of crime or terrorism is not in and of itself notable as everyone knows (WP:BIO, WP:N). What about the four other people killed in the same incident? Didn't they have families who loved and cared about them? Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, or redirect/merge to page of incident.. Either works fine form my point of view. Two One Six Five Five discuss my greatness 19:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Half the article is about the funeral, classic WP:NOT#MEMORIAL material. If it is moved to a neutral article on the attacks that covers all victims that would be the minimum necessary. --Dhartung | Talk 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete this per failing WP:BIO and WP:NOT, and redirect her name to the terrorist attack article which we should go about creating with some merged content from here - does the article on the terrorist attack even exist? That should be notable, and she individually is not notable.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It appears that the article about the terrorist attack doesn't exist. It really should. I guess we did things differently back in 2005.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Not really. I don't think every terrorist attack should have an article, necessarily, though if one is well written I won't vote it out. For the most part we have very random coverage of stuff like this. --Dhartung | Talk 05:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect, per eveyone above. I don't see how this article can be permitted with WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. hateless 07:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Kusadasi bus bombing as per previous. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the bombing article, possibly a smerge but really we shouldn't give the victims disproportionate coverage. And we should find the names of the non-Western victims. --Dhartung | Talk 11:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - Have added names of "non-western" victims to the separate bombing article. (It took me a while to find because there are few English language sources that identified the victims [which is partly understandable, and partly telling of our news media]). Per my previous, I still agree with redirect/smerge. Personally I'm not sure if there is actually anything "relevant" in the article on Ms. Whelan that hasn't already been covered. As noted, if much of the funeral/bio detail were merged, it would cause balance issues. At this point I'd say a straightforward "redirect" would be least controversial and would represent consensus from this AfD and the previous one. Guliolopez (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect to 2005 Kusadasi bus bombing as specified above. Wikipedia is not a memorial, but it can't hurt to have a bit of material on the victims in the main article, as well as a redirect for people looking for this person. Lankiveil (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC).


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, sources have been added. Canley (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Romit Raaj

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

This person isn't notable enough to be on Wikipedia and no reliable sources given.

  • Delete - not notable. Macy's123 review me 18:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete -- has no WP:RS to establish notability. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - Country of origin unknown, no WP:RS, no WP:NOTE, nothing! Two One Six Five Five discuss my greatness 19:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. We should avoid WP:BIAS. He might be borderline notable in India. Google comes up with some interesting results but I'm not sure these are enough.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep (conditional)(see below) - unless an editor in India agrees to a delete. I found the article only because it incorrectly linked to the rugby disambiguation page. I immediately added three links: one to Zee TV and one to each of the two TV shows. India is is the country with the world's largest english-speaking population, I think, so this article is at least as relevant to the english Wilipedia as an article on (say) an actor who was a regular on Dallas. But unless you watch Zee TV, you cannot really have a valid opinion. -Arch dude (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Valid opinions are based upon the existence of sources, to demonstrate that the the WP:BIO criteria are satisfied, and upon our various content policies, including Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. They aren't based upon what an editor watches on the television. That way madness and chaos lies. HisSpaceResearch approached this the right way, by looking for sources and citing them so that their provenances and depths can be evaluated. You have not. Please learn from xyr example. Uncle G (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
      • OK, let me re-phrase: based on the borderline reliable sources found by HSR and noted above, we should lean toward keeping this article. -Arch dude (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I just did some quick research, This guy's name is also spelled "Romit Raj", and there are several articles about him (not just mentioning him) in what appear to be the online versions of major Indian newspapers. I have added the references to two such articles. I would appreciate it if someone familiar with the Indian press can verify the nature of the sources. -Arch dude (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --VS talk 22:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ionian Village

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

It's an article about a private summer camp for Greek youth. There is no indication of why it is a notable summer camp, other than the fact that is was established by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, which I don't think makes it notable enough to warrant an article. Watchsmart (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. No assertion of notability. J-ſtanContribsUser page 02:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't really say what makes it notable, and I don't think we have all summer camps listed here, or want them to be. Pharmboy (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

*Merge with Iakovos, Archbishop of America, who founded the camp [40]. I can't find enough info to support an independent article, but it seems relatively important to Greek Americans, so we should mention it somewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 06:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Change to weak keep, as I seem to have overlooked a substantial article about the place from the NYT. (Diane Sierpina. "Ancient culture, modern campers". New York Times. October 8, 1995. CN25.) The NYT also has a short piece about Jackie O's 1975 visit ("Notes on people". New York Times. July 8, 1975. 22). And this Greek News article should count for something. This topic may have more potential than I thought; lets give it time to grow. Zagalejo^^^ 05:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge. Doesn't seem to be that notable an institution. Lankiveil (talk) 11:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC). Keep as per discovery of sources by User: Zagalejo. Lankiveil (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Merge and redirect looks appropriate here.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 03:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zagalejo's findings of secondary sources that are about this topic. --Oakshade (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyone - I am the original author and a new member (learning the ropes). From your comments I understand better the need for relevance and detail that ties this submission to the greater body of global knowledge - so please let me add relevant detail. Please re-consider after you see my edits. Thanks. Planetcast (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What you need is two things: At the start of the article, you need to 'assert notability', meaning establish why this is more than just another camp. This can only be done, of course, if the camp is notable for something in particular. Second, you need to include citations from reliable sources (wp:RS is the policy). This would include newspapers, larger websites (not blogs) and such. If the camp is not notable, and just 'a really nice place', then it probably won't pass. Wikipedia isn't for listing every camp, business, school, etc., and as an encylopedia, has to limit itself somewhat to notable topics, as defined by the policy WP:Notability and others. If it does have writeups in the New York Times, then link to the NYT article in the camp article, then come back and say so. You are better off if you do that when you first start an article, to avoid all this AFD mess. Pharmboy (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I added some refs. The NYT articles aren't available online, as far as I can tell, but I'm sure you could find them in a library if you had questions about them. Zagalejo^^^ 04:14, 5 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 03:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per national newspaper sources. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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☿ 06:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lynn Vincent

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

Seems just short of WP:BIO. I can't find any sources on the subject herself. There's a bit more for Donkey Cons, but seemingly no reviews by reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, "She admits to not being able to bake." Well, golly gosh, what useful info! No indication of notability, and just being an editor of a magazine won't push you over the line in my view. Lankiveil (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete, If there is a notability here it is not readily apparent through searches. Provide some meaningful references and clean up the article and it can be revisited. --Stormbay (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was No concensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 17:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accidents Sketch

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Several Monty Python sketches
Articles for deletion/Accidents Sketch (2nd nomination)
Accidents Sketch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: This was previously involved in a train wreck AFD which yielded no consensus. Now found in the PROD workstream; PROD nominator states "fails WP:EPISODE guidelines as there are no reliable sources to prove it's individual notability. Also fails WP:PLOT". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: WikiProject Monty Python has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No individual notability.Kww (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

—Collectonian (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per (original) nom. No evidence of individual notability. Tevildo (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - WP:NOR. DS (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Selfo

Cannot find any reliable sources for this game, maybe a hoax? VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 02:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. My Gsearch didn't hit anything remotely related to a game named Selfo, so it appears to fail WP:V and therefore also WP:N. No idea if it's a hoax. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There's actually a source cited in the article, in a "References" section. It's a paper by a Francisco J. Vico, an associate professor at the University of Málaga, undoubtedly one and the same as Fjvico (talk · contribs). It's not actually a published paper, however. There's nothing at the URL given. Nor is it a peer reviewed journal article. Uncle G (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, no indication that this is a notable board game. Lankiveil (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • In my opinion, the discussion of whether the description of a newly proposed game is or is not trustworthy is out of context here. The class of games (not just a game, indeed) that I have identified and described in an internal report of Universidad de Málaga is an original contribution to the field of connection games. This fact has been checked by myself. But it is true that it lacks from evidences (so to say) to claim that this proposal is popular enough in the community of strategy games. For this reason, I have decided to delete the article and perform an extra effort of diffusion before actually reporting it in WP. Thanks for your comments. fjvico (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shane Minor

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

Claims to be a former Mr. USA, which is a redlink, so I doubt that it's a real notable claim. Only other claims are modeling in Playgirl and three roles in redlinked films -- a look at IMDb seems to indicate that these films are quite non-notablle. Overall, he doesn't seem to have enough going for him to pass WP:BIO. (Note: If this page is deleted, may I ask that the content from Shane Minor (singer) be moved to Shane Minor?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree since I took the time TO NOTE HIM. He was a Mr USA in 1994. That information is easy enough to verify by checking the list of previous title holders. Also, he was one of the earliest pioneers in using the multimedia to offer personal trainer coaching via cd-rom. He has worked as a fitness and clothing model as well as dabling in acting.

  • As much as I'd like to claim credit, it was completely unintentional! Lankiveil (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC).

Listen, the guy was a Mr USA. That claim can be verified by checking the list of previous Mr USA title holders. The fact that no one decided to write about it on Wiki is hardly surprising since the title is no longer being awarded. Shane was a celebrity in the 1990s. You deleted his entry which seems odd. The purpose of Wikipedia seems to be a popularity contest that only gives recognition to certain select individuals. It is NOT a source of reliable information because of this.

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

The result was keep per WP:HEY and WP:N (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 21:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hazard High School

Hazard High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article does not indicate the significance or importance of the school. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. Lacks claims to noability or sources to back up such claims. I'd like to see the article given a little time, though, as it was just created today. A PROD might've been more appropriate. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —JERRY talk contribs 03:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete with no prejudice against recreation.Keep Generally speaking, all high schools are notable, but they should be more than a mere directory listing. If an editor significantly improves this article during the AFD, by adding substantial content I'll probably change my !vote.Changed !vote by my reasoning listed originally JERRY talk contribs 06:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC) JERRY talk contribs 03:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable basketball program, among other things. I've added a few refs to the article, and I'll add some more soon. Zagalejo^^^ 05:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Keep. I was originally going to !vote "weak delete", buy my vote got edit conflicted by Zagalejo's post aove. The refs added are a good start (although it would be nice if those basketball players could be bluelinked), and given that the article's only a couple days old I'm willing to give it a little time to grow even with more sources coming in. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources establish Wikipedia:Notability. Alansohn (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, ie until we change policy on high-schools entirely: this is as good as the high-schools articles could expect to be now. Greswik (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zagalego, who has substantially improved the article. Important history has happened there as included and cited. There's more to be added about the school's academic progress over the years. • Gene93k (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per improvements. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete A7 by User:Orangemike, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dragonball LDS

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

Non-notable Dragon Ball fan fic. This is nothing at all official, simply fan fiction from a forum. Redfarmer (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Nakon 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. There is some evidence of off-wiki canvassing, particularly on the Yahoo group mentioned below, but it's unclear whether this substantially affected participation here. Nevertheless, the article is 11 months old and still has no WP:V or WP:RS, despite being brought to AfD and this issue specifically mentioned. Pigman☿ 06:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DBMM De Bellis Magistrorum Militum

DBMM De Bellis Magistrorum Militum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No evidence of meeting WP:N, no Reliable sources, prod removed by SPA, Delete Secret account 02:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. No asserted notability. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 03:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, all that Google shows is the home page for the rules themselves, as well as various directory entries and the like. Nothing that would establish that this is a notable or important ruleset. Lankiveil (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Keep The rulesets produced by Barker and the WRG usually have a large following. I expect that there will be coverage of this new edition in magazines like Miniature Wargaming. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • But til then, no sources exists Secret account 23:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It may well have been written up already - I don't usually read such magazines myself. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, unless someone can produce such a citation, the fact remains that there appear to be no third-party, neutral sources on the topic. The article can go away then, until someone writes about it, and then perhaps an article will be appropriate. Mr Maxim (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Its the youngest of the dbx rules sets from phil Barker, the man that has dominated ruleswriting for ancient medieval miniature wargaming worldwide for over 25 years, the site will quite probably evolve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.196.131 (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Encyclopaedic merit is not like an Erdos number...simply being associated with some other remarkable topic does not make a topic itself remarkable. No-one is complaining here about the amateurish quality of the website, so that it may 'evolve' is irrelevant. What is being discussed here is whether these rules are sufficiently important to merit an encyclopaedia article in their own right, and not, say, a mention in the article on one of the more well-known DBx systems. At the moment, it seems that they are in their infancy, and it is not the place of Wikipedia to proselytise for them, nor to enshrine them in an encyclopaedia when it is not known to what extent they will really 'take off'. Mr Maxim (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • their popularity is not in question...or should not be. They have considerable followings worldwide already - certainly not as much as their antecendants, but substantial enough to have had competitions run at various wargaming conventions, and a substantial discussion group. The article does not "proselytise" in any manner I can recognise - it seems to be a reasonably factual and brief account of their provenance and differences from previous rules they have been developed from.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep If all you know about the DBMM rules, their notability, and Phil Barker is what you get by Googling them then you probably aren't qualified to pipe up about whether/why they should be deleted. Also, why is notability a criteria? If something is notable then the majority of people are probably already familiar with it and won't need to look it up in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noworld (talk • contribs) 21:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That 'argument' is fallacious. Winston Churchill is surely notable, yet most people would probably want to consult an encyclopaedia article about him if they haven't the stamina to wade through Martin Gilbert's tedious hagiography. I agree that Google is not an absolute guarantor of notability, but it often does give a fair indication of a subject's relative importance. You also seem to suggest that only those with access to 'privileged' information (such as through being adherents of various iterations of DBx rules) are 'qualified' to 'pipe up' on the topic...that is equally fallacious, and if a topic requires 'insider information' to establish its notability, then it cannot be encyclopaedic; nor can a reasonably neutral and well-referenced article be written about it, placing it outside Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. Mr Maxim (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Wargaming may be a minority hobby, but it still has considerable numbers practising it worldwide. The author of these rules has been a major player in the hobby since 1970 or before, and his previous set of rules ([DBM]) arguably the most published and most played set of wargames rules to date....and if they aren't then the next likely contender is [DBA] - written by hte same person. The rules author is not the author of this page and so far his comment on it is limited to it being essentially correct and why would anyone want to delete it (see http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/57237). If you're going to use google as a criteria I suggest "phil barker DBMM" wil provide you with many more links. --Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)— Aloysius the Gaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • The singular of 'criteria' is 'criterion'; interesting that User:Noworld doesn't know that either, though it is a common barbarism. I find it disturbing that this discussion has been linked to by an external mailing list...Mr Maxim (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It's normal that most stuff about these rules is from the author - they are a new set of rules! The rules have been reviewed in the wargames press quite extensively, notably in the Society of Ancients Journal, Slingshot and also online. A good example here http://www.box.net/shared/n18bvwh4o4 Pyruse (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)— Pyruse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Yes, but the 'Society of Ancients' and its journal 'Slingshot' are hardly what could be called independent, unbiased, non-partisan sources when it comes to the productions of Phil Barker, are they?[41] And the online review you link to was written last night and placed on a free file hosting site. By someone who is obviously a fan of Barker's work. Such things are two a penny on the Internet (nay, cheaper), and don't really prove anything at all. Anyone wanting Wikipedia to shill for their product (and I am not suggesting this is going on here, merely pointing out a hypothetical possibility) could get their claqueurs to write 2 dozen 'reviews' about it, post them on various blogs, file storage sites, and so forth, and then go to Wikipedia to point to the reviews as 'evidence' of the product's importance. That's why Wikipedia has a policy on what is a reliable source, and what isn't. Mr Maxim (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Nothing on the DBMM page was written by the author, and the SOA and Slingshot are, in fact, completely independant of Phil Barker and he often comes for criticism from them. The current editor of "Slingshot" is a proponent of a competing rule system. I put the review there as soon as it was announced - AFAIK the author of the review is not even aware there is a DBMM page on Wiki, and has spent at least het last couple of years playing a competing product. there are in fact few reviews of DBMM on the web.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If 'there are in fact few reviews of DBMM on the web' (and in print as well, since no-one can produce a citation either), then it cannot be as important or influential as is claimed, and nor could an article be produced which relies only on third-party, verifiable and reliable sources. Mr Maxim (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fair enough, the chap who wrote these rules may be considered by some wargamers to be the wasp's nipples as far as that thing goes, but the DBM community is a subset of the wargaming community as a whole which does seem to have a tendency to claim disproportionate prominence for itself. That, of course, isn't a reason to delete, but it is background. The real reason why this should be deleted is that it is not referenced, and likely not able to be referenced from third party sources, at least until the ruleset attains (if it attains) the ubiquity afforded to its predecessor, which has an article. In other words, 'notable by association' is not really an argument, and as things stand, the ruleset isn't encyclopaedic when considered on its own terms, though a sub-section in the DBM article may not be inappropriate. If it takes off, then it may warrant its own article, sourced from third party publications, but until then, one may be forgiven for thinking that Wikipedia is being used by this ruleset's fans as either an altar or a pulpit. Mr Maxim (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • a subsection of DBM page would not be apprpriate - DBMM is as different from DBM as DBR is, and although it is a development of DBM it is most definitely not "DBM 4.0" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloysius the Gaul (talk • contribs) 22:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, fair point, then I guess it shouldn't be mentioned at all, at this point in time. Mr Maxim (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Seed

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

Per the notability guidelines for future films, this article does not warrant existence. This was a project that was announced at the beginning of 2007 with the two cast members, but it has not entered active production since then. IMDb shows that it is only in pre-production, and a sentence (albeit unverifiable) in the article says the project is currently inactive. Proposed deletion was challenged, so here it is. No issues with recreation if it can be shown that production began on this project. Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - if it's inactive, and it doesn't appear to be getting much in the way of coverage at this point, it should probably be deleted. If it starts to get more buzz and seems headed for release, then it could easily be recreated using reliable sources then. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per the notability guidelines for films; should the project enter production, or can be shown to be in production currently, the article can be recreated. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 23:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to New York City secession. The page is mostly unsourced but sources produced during the AfD demonstrate that this is a genuine movement and I shall include those in the merged article. TerriersFan (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Upstate New York statehood movement

Article does not provide any references for the supposed secessionist movement it purports to discuss. Indeed, there is no evidence that an Upstate New York statehood movement exists or has ever existed. Poshua (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

For note, this article was nominated for AfD in 2/2007, and no consensus was reached because some users suggested the page could be more properly sourced or merged, however there has been no change since. Poshua (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Neutral: Report on Secession, Blog on it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctrl build (talk • contribs) 02:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC) \
  • Merge/redirect to New York City secession. This isn't actually a separate movement -- in fact the majority of the support for the split seems to come from upstate, and the only legislation that would effect it seems to have been a longstanding pet bill of Randy Kuhl. Of course, the bill would leave the name "New York" on the city plus surrounding counties and give the name West New York to Upstate, but it still amounts to the same thing. NYT and a minor mention in ISBN 0823221423 are about all the substnative coverage I can find. --Dhartung | Talk 11:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to New York City secession as above, as they basically amount to the same thing. Lankiveil (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Redirect per above. That's a great idea. I have heard of it being a New Yorker (although I know this would not meet WP:N). It is a movement that exists and worth mentioning. Although the lack of cites in this article does bother me a bit. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge (with redirect, of course) to New York City secession. Two sides of the same coin. Besides the citations above, I've seen newspapers and political propaganda which gave substantial coverage to the topic. None is in my reach at the moment (workplace). I'm in John "Randy" Kuhl's state district and it's not the subject of much real debate or practical discussion of consequences, just used as an excuse to bitch about somebody else telling us what to do, exploited for its emotional appeal rather than being considered as a serious proposal. Barno (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment how about Division of New York state into two states ? IT removes bias towards NYC or Upstate NY as the focus of the secessionist movement. 70.51.8.231 (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Herostratus (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Schmuck (pejorative)

  • Keep this and make the connection that Schmuck was used coloqually as a reference to the "Family Jewels" and thus the pejorative use came into being.
Schmuck (pejorative) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary the information contained within the article is nothing more than what would be found in a dictionary (see the Wiktionary article wiktionary:schmuck) such as the definition, usage and etymology - along with a smattering of original research. The word is already mentioned in the article List of English words of Yiddish origin and commonly used; that does not mean it should have an encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOT#DICT. I don't see anyway this could be expanded to be encyclopedic. Redfarmer (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As it stands, the article is only a little more than a dictionary-type definition, but that is not to suggest that there is not grounds for expansion. The word itself certainly has a good deal of significance on a cultural level, as it represents one of the most prominent words of Yiddish origin to be assimilated into the standard English lanquage, making it a very notable aspect of a culturally significant linguistic aspect of history. As such, I would be very surprised if there is not more material relating to the history of the word's entry into and usage in the English language, material which could be used to help make this into a well-rounded encyclopedic article. Calgary (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • We already have an article on Words of Yiddish origin that discusses how such words enter the English language. We don't need article on each individual word repeating the same discussion. There's nothing that can be said here that cannot also be said in the actual encyclopaedic article dealing with the subject of words that have Yiddish origins. The "cultural significance" argument is bogus. The subject that sources, such as ISBN 0817311033 for example, discuss is the loaning of Yiddish words, by groups or as a whole, into other languages, not the individual words. Etymologies of the individual words belong in the dictionary, at wikt:schmuck for example, which Words of Yiddish origin can easily cross-link to, just as wikt:Category:Yiddish derivations cross-links back to Words of Yiddish origin.

    This article, and indeed the duplicate disambiguation at Schmuck, should never have been created. What should have happened is that the dictionary content should have been kept out of the original disambiguation article (which is now a disambiguation-within-a-disambiguation at Schmuck (surname)) in accordance with our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. The article did sport a link to the dictionary in a big shiny box in its top-right-hand corner at the time, after all.

    Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete this, delete the wholly unnecessary duplicate disambiguation Schmuck, and let's have the name disambiguation Schmuck (surname) back where it once was. Uncle G (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep One of many articles that goes beyond a dictionary definition, with Rosten source cited. Alansohn (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. A subject that could be expanded fairly easily; ought to be possible to find sources discussing its fate in the English speaking world, and its (non)recognition as an obscenity. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep That there is an article on such words in general does not mean that individual ones aren't notable. this one is, and there will be sources. There's a great deal more to be said. DGG (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Me and Orson Welles (film)

Me and Orson Welles (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about "upcoming" film. Mostly speculation. Fails WP:CBALL. Redfarmer (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • This article (Me and Orson Welles (film)) is fully accurate, as the author of the novel was my AP English teacher last year and I just spoke with him January 3rd regarding the matter, among other things. I am hoping that by creating this article now others will be able to add information to it. (Tenniskh89 (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC))
  • ADDITION: If you would like to delete the article and wait for greater publicity/finalized casting then I understand and will wait until then to create the article. (Tenniskh89 (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC))
  • Delete - fails WP:NFF, can't find anything reliable that would assert the notability of the topic, just some stuff on fansites and one local newspaper article [42]. [[Guest9999 (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)]]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per the notability guidelines for future films as the project is not in production. Like Guest9999, I only found the passing mention of the project in development, but this is not enough to warrant a stand-alone article. No prejudice against recreation if it can be verifiably shown that production has commenced. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. It's all just unverified speculation, basically. Lankiveil (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete. Any coverage is mostly from insane teeny-bopper blogs because Zac Efron is allegedly in this project. None the less, I can't find any reliable sources aside from these insane Zac Efron fans. Anywho, this is pure crystal ballery. It isn't in pre-production yet or in IMDb. Doc Strange (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per the notability guidelines for films; should the project enter production, the article can be recreated. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 23:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as the foregoing have reasoned. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was keep per WP:SPORT, WP:BIO, WP:SNOW, etc. (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 21:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Egloff

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

NN baseball player, he's just a guy who happened to pitch for the Indians, wasn't even any good. No assertion of notability, no reliable sources to establish notability. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Although WP:SPORT isn't policy, I agree with it that a person who has participated in Major League baseball, as well as a full season of AAA Baseball, is notable. In addition, he satisfies the criteria of athletes for WP:BIO: "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league." Both the Major League and AAA Baseball are fully professional leagues. Redfarmer (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Do a Newsbank search. You'll find at least a half-dozen full-length newspaper articles primarily about him. I cited a few in the Wikipedia entry. Zagalejo^^^ 02:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Established consensus, if he's pitched in the majors, he's notable.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:SPORT. Maxamegalon2000 06:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, even as a non-American, I know that Major League Baseball is the top baseball league in the world, and players appearing in it are notable. Lankiveil (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Keep, almost all major leaguers are notable. Article has been sourced to assert notability now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per overwhelming consensus on WP:Inherent notability for professional athletes who have played at the highest level of their sport, even if it was just six games as in this case. The sources added to the article only further establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as all major league baseball players are notable. 11kowrom 16:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 11kowrom (talk • contribs)
  • Keep notable. Quality of play does not warrant a deletion either. Rhino131 (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 01:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] M. Antoine

M. Antoine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unverifiable, unsourced, appears to be a hoax. Deprodded. Accurizer (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - no references, no notability, clearly a hoax or vanity article. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete dumb. JuJube (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable, and some of the content in the "Relationships" section could be interpreted as a personal attack if there is a real person with this name out there. Lankiveil (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Speedy delete as a bizarre hoax. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - KrakatoaKatie 03:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kenzie MacKinnon

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

Non-notable politician, scant media coverage and didn't win any election, delete. WooyiTalk to me? 01:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, a serial unsuccessful candidate, there appears to be nothing particularly remarkable about him. Lankiveil (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Keep He was considered a serious candidate for the leadership of a serious political party. Past consensus has been to keep leadership candidates for Canadian political parties who have representation in a legislative body. - Jord (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Further, he got 12% of the vote in a four-way race, to a delegated leadership convention, and was endorsed by a former Premier of Nova Scotia, the head of government in the jurisdiction he sought the leadership. - Jord (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Serious candidate for the leadership of a recognized party. CJCurrie (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. GreenJoe (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jord and CJCurrie. Ground Zero | t 13:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep A serially unsuccessful candidate can still be notable. There are enough non-trivial mentions to write a good stub. –Pomte 14:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete – no third-party sources, fails WP:ORG. KrakatoaKatie 01:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tufts Democrats

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

No independent coverage, and just another college political organization. Basically every research institute in America would have a Democratic and a Republican organization. If we are going to keep the article, we'd have Harvard Republicans, Yale Democrats, Georgetown Democrats, and so on. Delete. WooyiTalk to me? 00:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per precedent and WP:ORG. Student clubs at a single school are almost never notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:ORG and Andrew Lenahan. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, just another student political organisation. Lankiveil (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete per above, and no good sources - only two college sites. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Wonder Girls. Herostratus (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Yoo Bin

Kim Yoo Bin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page is for a non-notable member of the Korean group Wonder Girls. Although the group has been successful, Kim has done nothing as a single person, and the only thing newsworthy about her to date is the fact that she entered the group late, as a last-minute replacement before their first album. As such, there should be no reason why a Wikipedia page for her should exist, especially if this information can be integrated into the main group article. SKS2K6 (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Shorten and Merge for both Ahn So Hee and Kim Yoo Bin to Wonder_Girls#Members_Profiles for now. I recommend that the nom include Ahn So Hee to this nomination. ---Lenticel (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect and then let the editors of Wonder Girls do any merging they want later. The sourcing on this article is quite poor, so I don't even know if there's much worth merging, but deletion clearly isn't the right outcome here; if nothing else, her name is a potential search term. Agree 100% with Lenticel's comments on Ahn So Hee too. cab (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect, agree with nominatior, but probably should be redirected to Wonder Girls. Lankiveil (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC).


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Production began in April 2007, so it meets the threshold for WP:NFF; the three third-party articles in references, plus the ELs given in this discussion, seem sufficient to meet WP:N. KrakatoaKatie 03:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Heaven Project

The Heaven Project (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NFF, specifically: but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines. Just because one of the actors may be a notable star, doesn't make the production itself notable. -- ALLSTARecho 00:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, it passes WP:NFF, see here. Or would you like to offer a complete sentence for a deletion rationale? hateless 00:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, I don't really see how this fails WP:NFF. You can view the trailer for this film here and here is at least one article where this film is mentioned. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Well known actors connected to the movie make it notable. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: And how many of them received significant awards or significant and reliable press coverage? Or have the box-office draw of someone like Tom Cruise or the critical acclaim of someone like Meryl Streep? — Becksguy (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The actors Paul Walker and Linda Cardellini are clearly notable having played leading roles in major films. Trying to compare their fame to two of the biggest movie stars ever is unreasonable (also not all notable actors win awards). And, yes, they have both had significant and reliable press coverage (look at the movies they have had major roles in!). Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per above. A couple of pre-release headlines to further affirm the keep: Walker enters 'Heaven' and Mandeville's in 'Heaven'. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep seems to be notable, some sources from: AOL [43], the New York Times [44], Yahoo [45], MSN [46], Variety [47], BIFA [48], the BBC [49]. [[Guest9999 (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)]]
  • Keep Notable upcoming film, plenty of reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice per nom. I just don't see any sufficiently notable sources about this forthcoming movie. The New York Times is just announcing it without any significant coverage. The Variety articles also essentially don't do much more than announce the movie, and IMDB or trailers don't count for notability per se. Same for other sources. It's not like the pre-release press coverage for The Passion of the Christ or Brokeback Mountain, for example, which clearly were notable before release. I believe it violates WP:NFF per the nom quote of the guidelines. At least at this point in time. — Becksguy (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, since film has not been released, and no evidence has yet been presented in the article that the production itself is notable. In fact, so far, the article has no references at all. Cardamon (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please review the comments above that provide more than sufficient evidence of notability. It's a matter of referencing what we know is now notable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, no secondary sources that assert the notability of this film (what amounts to an announcement that it exists doesn't really confer notability). Lankiveil (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Yes, it does. Variety qualifies as a third-party, reliable source, and it has provided significant coverage of this film before its release, which is in line with the notability guidelines for future films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As Becksguy pointed out above, the Variety articles essentially don't do much more than announce the movie. That's hardly notable. Just because it has a notable actor in it, doesn't make the production itself notable and so does not meet WP:NFF. ALLSTARecho 19:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean. I've just used the sources to indicate the background of the project -- that it originated in September 2005, experienced a delay, and began production in April 2007, not to mention the belated join-up by an actress. I think you underestimate coverage from Variety and The Hollywood Reporter -- there are many, many films that do not get significant coverage from them. It doesn't matter if it's an "announcement" -- the articles are significant in their coverage, not just passing mentions. This film isn't by any means going to be a blockbuster, but it's determined enough notability at this point to warrant inclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please remember to be considered notable a topic doesn't just have to have been mentioned by secondary sources, it has to have recieved "significant coverage" [[Guest9999 (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)]]
  • WP:N: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. These articles do just that. The headlines are focused on the topic, and the content is focused on the topic. These really aren't passing mentions at all like the example at WP:N about the band Three Blind Mice in a Bill Clinton biography. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep based on satisfaction of WP:NFF. Alansohn (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sources above from Andrew (above) satisfies requirements. Somebody want to stick those into the article for the time being? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Working on that now, actually. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: No, actually the sources don't satisfy WP:NFF if you look at them carefully. Variety, although providing more than a passing mention, is essentially just a press release announcement, with no significant and no intellectually independent coverage in a trade publication. Essentially all it does is list, in prose form, the kind of data that IMDB lists: production company, screenwriters, cast, yadda, yadda. Not a reliable source in this case. Do any of the people involved have an Academy Award? Is the movie headed to Sundance, or Cannes? Is the director a famous auteur? Although notability isn't inherited. Any articles on the film in a serious magazine on film criticism? Have any mainstream journalistic or academic film critics discussed it? Note that the NYT mention is just a listing, nothing more, and doesn't count, and neither do the rest of the listings provided. It's just another Hollywood product until sufficiently reliable sources say it's notable. The article's subject lacks intrinsic notability at this time, and that can't be fixed with editing, otherwise I would be arguing to keep, as I have many times before (to the point of probably being considered an inclusionist by some). — Becksguy (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • My argument has been that this film has received significant coverage from reliable, third-party published sources, namely Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. I would caution against your attempt to "dissect" these sources. Because they are trade papers and only providing descriptive details with the film not yet out, they may sound like press release announcements, but they are not. Neither papers are studio-represented; they qualify as secondary sources. I don't believe your other suggestions (Sundance, Cannes, Award) are appropriate for the film in this stage since it is not released yet. I am not arguing to keep the article on the basis of the relatively notable cast members of Walker and Cardellini, nor the website listings, of which there can be many. Variety and The Hollywood Reporter hardly cover every film that's ever going to be made, so there's no reason to cast doubt on their coverage about The Heaven Project when they cannot procure an article about every project in the making. The coverage is relatively minimal, sure, but it's still enough. I've edited articles on upcoming films for some time, and while I wish I could reflect my experiences to you in a sentence or two, all I can do is impart the fact that many upcoming films that range in scale will lack unquestionable coverage in their early stages. As far as I'm concerned, this film article has crossed the threshold with its existing coverage, and while I can't guarantee it, more will likely follow. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thank you for a long and constructive response, Erik. I can see your point, but I still think the two trade publications are more press releases than articles about the film (although I now agree that they are third party). If they had discussed it in terms of something more than just unadorned production related facts, in other words, something significant, I would agree with you. Nine months before Brokeback Mountain was released, there was buzz about it's being a Oscar contender, for example. That's the kind of coverage that's needed to make an unreleased film notable (although not to the same degree obviously). And my comment about the Awards was not about the movie, it was about the people associated with the film. If Johnny Depp was one of the stars we wouldn't be having this discussion, but Walker and the others are not A-list stars, or household names, not yet anyway (I had to look him up). Also, if this had been a AfD about a "X in popular culture" article, those references would not be accepted. I know, after having gone through several very stressful AfDs defending those kinds of articles. Frankly, I'm surprised at myself for being on the opposite side of the debate table in this particular AfD, but intellectual honesty forces me to argue against what I see as intrinsic non-notability at this time, despite my preferences. Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that part of the issue is that Variety and The Hollywood Reporter tend to be industry-focused, so they may impart details that don't seem very significant about the film to the majority of people. (Just take a look at their latest headlines -- they're not very interesting outside of certain major announcements that make some fans salivate.) I was actually looking at the existing citations and thinking, "They probably reported about the film because of the names of Walker and Cardellini." They've been the highlights for two of the articles, so while this is just an educated guess, I think that's why the film was mentioned at all. Articles at either trade paper tend to provide some coverage when it's either A) a notable director, B) a notable cast member, or C) a notable premise (such as being based on source material or franchise). If this film didn't have any of these, it wouldn't have gotten any coverage. From what I can tell, B qualifies with Walker and Cardellini being, not super-notable names but rather, some-notable names. While I'm just speculating here, it seems to show that the names do have some weight. Also, regarding the role switch at AFD, it's been interesting for me, too, since I recommend to delete more often than keep. Special circumstances, I suppose. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep due to the listed cites; they clearly qualify as third-party, even if coverage is as yet minimal. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 23:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 01:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yakum

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

No obvious claim to notability for this specific kibbutz and no sources indicating notability. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - A kibbutz that was founded before the state of Israel was in existence is notable in itself. This is also been the subject of secondary sources that were more than "passing mentions", like from the Jerusalem Post when Amram Mitzna choose this kibbutz to revive his candidacy for Labor Party leader (he eventually won) [50] --Oakshade (talk) 03:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable for being formed pre-Israel as above. Just as notable as every other small village or town out there. Lankiveil (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Keep A well-written article on a notable kibbutz, above and beyond the overwhelming consensus on WP:Inherent notability of well-defined places, as is this one. Alansohn (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete – fails WP:BIO. KrakatoaKatie 01:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Shea

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

nn actor/model. Shea's acting credits according to his article and imdb consist of appearing as an extra in a made for TV movie, although he is apparently "best known" for a movie that hasn't been released yet and has no imdb listing. His sole modelling credit is appearing in a presumably nn calendar. I originally placed a PROD but it was removed. TM 00:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete No major acting parts to provide notability. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 01:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kate Crossley

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

Non notable small time actress, in a bit part role, look as if somebody placed this just for the sake of it Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete No major parts to make her notable. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:N. --Sc straker (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Almost certainly created in an attempt to support the case for keeping the Natasha Collins article. Apart from a role in a children's series which is alreay adequately covered in the show's own article, she's had a bit-part in a film, two one-episode roles in a popular drama and appeared in an insignificant five-minute short film. Not really enough. - 88.109.209.253 (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Not exactly true. However, I thought that ss Natasha Collins had an article, why not create one for Kate Crossley as well? But at the end of the day, both are really non-notable people, so even I would say delete this. Brochco (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete A definite candidate for deletion. Even less notable than Natasha Collins. Brett Leaford (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, only possible notability is the very weak connection to Natasha Collins. Other than that, just a garden variety bit-part actor. Pass the WP:BIO. Lankiveil (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete She is a Joe (or perhaps that should be Jo) Average and non-notable. Without the recent events surrounding Natasha Collins, she would probably never have had an article written about her.Egdirf (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Speedied as a repost of deleted material. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cedar Networks

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

This is an article about a non-notable ISP written by the sales and marketing manager of the company using a role account. The first version of this article, over at Cedar networks, was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

...of which this is a repost, albeit in abbreviated form (the wording of the sentences is basically identical, just some sections have been removed and replaced by an egregious "for more, see their website". As such, I've speedied it as a repost (G4). Grutness...wha? 00:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jade Raymond

Jade Raymond (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Just no notability; article doesn't assert notability either ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 01:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Tentative keep the host of a nationally televised show seems to me to be notable enough. Skomorokh incite 03:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unremarkable TV Presenter. Pumpmeup 10:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, can't see how she's any different to every other minor TV presenter out there. No awards or anything to indicate that she stands out from the crowd. Lankiveil (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Keep, subject has been the subject of multiple non-trivial news pieces due to her work as a producer of Assassin's Creed (and how she is one of the few high-placed women in a male-dominated field). I'll try to add some references before the discussion ends. -- Merope 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: The mere fact that many people have felt it necessary to publicly accuse Raymond of being unimportant despite her role as developer, spokesperson for Ubisoft and pioneering public game industry figure suggests the opposite is true: Excellence and prominence, not lackluster acceptability, incite spirited scrutiny, and the gaming press has been full of that kind of scrutiny. (One example among many: Wired Magazine listed the backlash against Jade Raymond as one of "Game|Life's 10 Biggest Disappointments of 2007" [51].) As the Guardian UK reported, "A young woman becoming the face of a major project - the internet grappled with it, a misogynistic fringe group belittled it, but they were more than happy to write about it."[52] However, as of January 2008, the population affected by Raymond's presence is reported to be larger than the "fringe" suggested by the Guardian, and it does not necessarily consist of young males, as has been suggested: According to The Financial Post, Raymond is relevant because the average gamer is 39 years old, and 42% of active gamers are women: her presence in the industry is said to speak to them, not young males who find Raymond superficially attractive.[53] To be fair to that emerging demographic, the practical thing to do would be to put up an entry on Raymond but keep it free of simpering and slander, as mods/eds do with entries on people like Hillary Clinton and George Bush III. Elected politicians are included in Wikipedia whether or not members of the public consider them ineffective -- the responsibilities and achievement of winning an office guarantees their entries' relevance. The same is true here: Raymond helped to develop and spearhead a game with a major release. Even if Assassin's Creed had been a complete and utter failure, her role in the game's fate would have to be written about here. Besides, Wikipedia has entries on minor TV actors, junk foods, short-lived urban slang and text speak. None of these is particularly "notable" in the literal sense, but all are culturally noteworthy (which is perhaps what Wikipedia's use of notable sometimes means). Also: Notorious cases of defamation of character and verbal lynching (like the horrendous 2007 attacks on Raymond) are of particular relevance at this stage in the internet's development, as recent examples bear out (such as the case against Lori Drew after Megan Meier's suicide).[54] I note that Megan Meier has an entry on Wikipedia (as she should) despite her having achieved far less "of note" than Raymond: the issue of cyberstalking is central to her entry and highly relevant culturally. It would also be relevant to Raymond's entry (and story) as well. -- Sepium Gronagh (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Just a heads up, that account seems to have been created solely to add to the article's talk page, and to add an entry here. Sockpuppetry? Fin©™ 12:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good faith - it looks like this editor's just enthusiastic about the subject. I'll leave a message on his/her talk page to take it easier. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Why should it be sockpuppetry? Lots of people only come here to to comment on one or two of the issues they're interested in. Being new doesn't mean that you can't have a good argument, either, and those are what we're obstensibly here to provide; I've seen anons blow veterans out of the water every now and then. --Kizor 22:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment - To the bogus accusation of "sock-puppetry," I answer: Since when is a false and unverifiable accusation as to intent validated by negative spin on another user's posting frequency? As to the "purpose" of my account: I have written for academic presses for twenty years, have nothing to do with Raymond or Ubisoft personally, and have written and edited entries on Wikipedia before -- but if I did have a user name, it has long since been forgotten (reference to entries available to mods via PM or my email address, which is verified). In the interests of quid pro quo, Falcon9x5, what are your unstated motives for launching character attacks on a stranger posting a reasonable response (with references) on a discussion page for an online encyclopedia? Besides which, everyone who writes for Wikipedia began with one entry -- why are you not accusing them of "sock-puppetry" as well? -- Sepium Gronagh (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment - As I've stated on your talk page, sepium, I don't think "sockpuppetry?" can be classed as a character attack, I was making other editors aware of my concerns. My motive for bringing up your contributions was that it's unusual to see a contributor editing around a single subject (and quite a narrow one at that), the fact that there's been large amounts of vandalism on Jade Raymond's page only heightened my concern. Anyway, it was a mistake and I apologise. Thanks! Fin©™ 13:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll be honest: I merely skimmed over your comment, Sepium, but most of it seemed to be along the lines of merely being associated with notable subjects, which does not give something notability; I'm related to Vikings' Adrian Peterson, who is pretty notable, especially right now, but that doesn't allow me to have my own article, does it. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 19:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Until you actually read my comment, you won't be able to summarize it. Development of a high-profile game, spokesperson for it and for the company that made it, singular target of sexual harassment in the game community and reported as such in the international press (see above) -- all of that might not make the subject important to every individual, but it does make the subject at least as culturally relevant as many others on Wikipedia. The entry should also address the very controversy that has many gamers protesting Raymond's relevance here and elsewhere -- if it's newsworthy enough to be covered in the press for two years (latest article I've seen: Financial Post, January 8), then it's in a different class of relevance than one's simply being a sports figure's brother (no disrespect intended). -- Sepium Gronagh (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Hmm, fair enough. If what you say is true and if the sources will actually be added to the article, then maybe it does need to exist. Crap, there are enough "Keep" votes up that it's probably going to be kept anyway. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 03:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, Raymond is more notable in her role as producer on Assassin's Creed than as a tv presenter. Kotaku references her every now and again. But I'm indifferent really. Fin©™ 14:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Fin©™ 14:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable person within video gaming because of her role in Assassin's Creed and the television show. Sources exist on both. User:Krator (t c) 14:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable as nationally broadcast TV host and for her work with the video game. 23skidoo (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Article as it is now does not verifiably assert Raymond's notability. - 68.79.5.64 (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Keywords "as it is now". See WP:PROBLEM. User:Krator (t c) 19:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - she's getting quite a bit of press, as evidenced by a quick Google News search: the first article to come up is a profile in the Financial Post specifically discussing her success in the industry. Here's an interview from 2004 in a German publication. Others discuss the game, her role in the game, and so on. It appears to me there's enough to provide a good basis for a solid article. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep She is well know. Her work in Assassin Creed shows it all. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep It needs more references, but it can certainly be saved. ― LADY GALAXY 16:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep.--Him and a dog 20:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Article as it stands is insufficient but I think this discussion has raised the fact that there's enough out there to justify keeping the article and expanding it. --Yamla (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep One of little female video game producers sounds like reason enough to me. I would mark the article as a stub, though. --Mistermartin75 (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't like to delete articles. --Damifb (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Archtransit (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tourparty

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

Advertising for non-notable camp provider Montco (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Should add conflict of interest concerns as User:Mdarcy may be Matthew D'arcy, listd as a director of the company.Montco (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, would seem to be a non-notable camp that fails WP:CORP. Lankiveil (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete - Opening line explains it all really. All of the sources are conflict of interest, no apparent assertion of notability and fails per Lankiveil. Rudget. 20:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • delete the spam - unless there are some refs to rewrite the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was VOID Bad Faith Nom by vandal-SPA. JERRY talk contribs 04:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Diefenbaker

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

small reasonably unknown person with little base. No need for article Latenightsgalor (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This AfD was started by a blatant "vandalism only account". The deletion subject is a former Prime Minister of Canada... hardly non-notable. 156.34.210.254 (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.