Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 13

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

The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wabash Commentary

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

Non-notable student newspaper. Unsourced. Violates WP:NPOV. Redfarmer (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: It appeared someone was attempting to list this article for deletion before but listed it incorrectly. Upon looking at the article, I agreed it should be nominated and listed it myself. -- Redfarmer (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Pretty unnotable, not to mention completely lacking in citations. The article really doesn't qualify for encyclopedic value, in my opinion. Alloranleon (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Definitely violates NPOV and a quick look at the history of the page seems to reveal some sort of stupid pissing match between random people in the group. Please delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck Gerber (talk • contribs) 17:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The article is not that notable. The article is probably useful for people associated with Wabash College, but not for everybody. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable enough at this time for inclusion. Lawrence Cohen 22:59, 3 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 01:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fort collins now

Fort collins now (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local free newspaper. Article is one sentence long. Newspaper is already mentioned in the article on Fort Collins, Colorado. Redfarmer (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Unless it can be sourced and expanded. I did a quick look on Google and found no reliable, independent sources.Noroton (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources. I can find some press release type articles in publications from the same publisher essentially announcing a name change for the paper but thing of real substance. -- Whpq (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete faster per nom. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:54, 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 keep as quite notable, a member of Procul Harum being an hit old-school rock band. Bearian (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Ball (Musician)

Dave Ball (Musician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musician. Claim to notability is being a member of a dozen or so non-notable bands. Fails WP:MUSIC. Redfarmer (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 03:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect - to Dave Ball (musician), note lower case on musician. He was a member of Procul Harum, a seminal group in the development of progressive rock. I've boldly redirected the article. -- 15:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete CSD A7 by Kurt Shaped Box. Non admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exit Student Ministries

Exit Student Ministries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable church youth ministry. No claim of notability. Fails WP:ORG. Redfarmer (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) Speedy delete per CSD A7 -- No assertion of notability. Apparently non-notable ministry of an apparently non-notable church. Why wasn't the article put up for speedy deletion under {{db-group}}? --SSBohio 00:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy A7 per nom. No assertion of notability. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't assert notability and doesn't appear to contain it either. I agree, this seems to be a {{db-group}} deletion. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:48, 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 Keep JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery of Flags of the American Revolution

Gallery of Flags of the American Revolution (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files Corvus cornix_talk 23:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NOT#LINK. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't create the article with the intent that it would be a collection of links; it just so happened that most of the flags had relevant articles associated with/about them. I created the gallery because 1) Some of the images have no related articles that I can find, and therefore cannot be placed into a related category; conversely 2) Category:Flags_of_the_American_Revolution exists, but it is only possible to sort the articles by name, when the more sensible way to sort the images is by appearance, flags being a visual medium. The gallery, if not deleted, would make a good featured article in that category.

I didn't want to add the gallery to the existing Flags_of_the_United_States because, obviously, not all of the flags are American.

If the page just needs something added to it, like unique text, please let me know and I'll work on it. (I won't bother expanding it any further if you're already sure it will be deleted.) Otherwise, please let me know before you delete the list. Mingusboodle (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just learned how to add images to categories. By doing that, this article would be redundant to Category:Flags_of_the_American_Revolution . In that case, I would agree that Gallery_of_Flags_of_the_American_Revolution should be deleted. The only advantage to the gallery is that I had planned to sort out the various flags by nation/alliance/use, which can't be done in the Category as it is. The other downside is that I notice several images had pages that have already been deleted, for whatever reason, and to add these images to a category, those pages must all be recreated. Mingusboodle (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as per Mingusboodle. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I haven't said Delete or Keep, yet.Mingusboodle (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• keep. I don't see that the nominator's rationale applies. Wikipedia is supposed to include anything that would comfortably sit in "general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs"; surely that includes encyclopedias such as this one? The article in question is just a specialized (in time and space) version of the same. It could do with some additional text, for sure, but I don't see it meeting criteria for deletion. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as per Paularblastar. Edward321 (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and add text as indicated, now that the ed. understands the need of it. DGG (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, add text, and rename to Flags of the American Revolution. I understand the nominator's rationale, but the article can be salvaged with the addition of text and an article name that doesn't imply a simple collection of images. —Kevin Myers 02:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki to commons. This type of file exists well on commons, and we can transwiki there and add a soft redirect here. In fact, precedence in the past has been to do exactly that: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flags of active autonomist and secessionist movements, which used this solution, and it worked quite well. 01:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Evil Spartan (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 02:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oracle Apps DBA

Oracle Apps DBA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This sounds more like a job description than an article. I fail to see the notability of this particular article. I tried to get input for a merge many weeks ago, no one was interested it seems. The article is all over the place, naming books and chapters, then going into a job description. I can't see how it can be salvaged, or that it is notable if it was. Pharmboy (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I tried to notify the creator, User talk:Oracle apps dba but that account has been blocked "because the username may be rude or inflammatory, be unnecessarily long or confusing, be too similar to an existing user". Pharmboy (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• This is an attempt to advertise a book by this title — the one described in the infobox on the article. This book is not listed in most on-line book catalogues. There's no Library of Congress listing for it, for example, nor does Amazon sell it. I eventually found it listed in the on-line catalogue of a Mumbai bookshop. The book was published on 2007-11-15, just two days after this article's creation by an account with the same name as the book. One of the other single-purpose-accounts that have edited this article, Ebizsrv (talk · contribs), was in possession of images of the book's front and back covers just 2 days after its publication, which xe uploaded. Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. If there's something to say on a subject by this name, we can start an article at our leisure, without hosting this advertisement in the meantime. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 03:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The article can be salvaged and I have just made a first pass through it, citing another existing book. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - It looks like a basic job description. It doesn't meet any of the requirements for WP:NOTE and also falls in multiple categories of WP:NOT#DIR and/or WP:NOT#GUIDE. The creator's one-day, single-purpose account of the same name smacks of a probable WP:COI --JJLatWiki (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a simple job description -- Whpq (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as above. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:55, 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 redirected to ten-code. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 10-13

10-13 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Tagged for speedy deletion as notability concerns; this is strictly a procedural nomination. Keilana^talk 22:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to Ten-code. Tevildo (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Duplicates one entry from the entire list at Ten-code. —Travis^talk 22:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I can agree to where the consensus is headed. Does this make it a Snowball Redirect? ;-) —Travis^talk 15:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Ten-code. Mh29255 (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect: As stated above. I would have just did it, but some people aren't as bold, I guess. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong redirect to Ten-code per above. --Lockley (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I don't know that much about Wikipedia or its terms and intricacies. However, I felt that an article specifically explaining the 10-13 code was useful. 10-13 has a significant meaning for NYPD cops. Since the NYPD is regailed as a widely-known and reputable police department, I thought a special article on one of the most, if not the most, important NYPD ten codes would serve useful. Thanks for your time. --Carouselambra —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.96.113 (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 02:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Straight panic defence

Straight panic defence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Neologism Boson (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Adds nothing to the correct term, Provocation (legal). Tevildo (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete WP:SNOW - Vandalism? Certainly more than hints of homophobia. Non notable neologism. Springnuts (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GregorB (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - interestingly, PROD was opposed. Pundit|utter 23:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete makes little sense to me. Anyway lawyers are always looking for any reason they can hold onto to get their clients off regardless of whether their client did it or not. This is an example of how weak some of their arguments can be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevethompson76051 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - The creation of this article stretches the bounds of good faith. It lifts some text almost verbatim from gay panic defense (an actual much-reviled legal defense) and uses it to create something that looks very much like a hoax article. Unsourced neologism crying out for a merciful demise. --SSBohio 03:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as evident hoax, and can we apply WP:SNOW? bikeable (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:HOAX or at least its a NN WP:NEO and/or made up Doc Strange (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete agree with all above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete faster as above – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:55, 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 – essay of original research that's not salvageable as an neutral encyclopedia article that could be userfied. This is its fifth recreation, so it's been salted. KrakatoaKatie 02:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cancer Cure

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

Indiscernible. Reads like an advertisement and sourcing is questionable. Previously uploaded as a copyvio of this web site but corrected copyvio issues so can't be speedied again. Smells of possible WP:HOAX to me. Redfarmer (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• There is already an endorsed Prod on the article, so I see no reason for this AfD. If the prod is removed, maybe, but this won't delete it any faster, so what's the purpose? I (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the other editor added the prod at virtually the same time I nominated it for AfD. If the admins want to wait for the prod, I'll endorse speedy close. Redfarmer (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It just seems redundant, but I do agree that is better to delete at AfD, which allows G4 to be invoked. So delete for the same reasons I listed in the prod. I (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, advert/essay. It even says "ABM isn't a cure for cancer" Nakon 21:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't meet WP:FRINGE, no reliable sources. The faster this leaves the better (someone might believe this is for real), but I can't see any obvious and immediate reason to speedy delete it. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - This appears to be an essay detailing one person’s battle with cancer. I’m glad that the author’s cancer is in remission, but this is not encyclopedic material. —Travis^talk 21:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I endorsed the prod but I endorse the AfD even more, as it will help keep this from being recreated over and over without addressing the issues. Fails WP:NOT on several counts: original research essay, soapbox, guidebook, and probably several other things as well. --Fabrictramp (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopaedic original research. Also does anyone know how the copyvio has been fixed as the source webpage still clearly states Copyright © 2006 faqshelp. All Rights Reserved. Distribution Or Republishing Is Not Permitted & if this is the case it should be speedied. nancy ^(talk) 22:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is taken from the website noted in the nomination above. The author has placed a GFDL notice on the page. —Travis^talk 22:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And this morning the original copyright notice has gone too nancy ^(talk) 08:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• I may not have included the Japanese scientific research references but someone else can look those up again and edit the page. This is real science not merely one persons experience, and therefore encyclopaedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris-nz (talk • contribs) 22:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not at all encyclopaedic. Fails in many areas per Fabrictramp and others, above. Tim Ross 22:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• What changes are suggested for inclusion ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris-nz (talk • contribs) 23:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

None - it's unsalvageable. It needs to be deleted. Dethme0w (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - it's all original research. Dethme0w (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And it's spam - one of the links is directly to a shopping cart!!! Looks like it's snowing. Dethme0w (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Snowball delete, article is an unsalvageable mountain of original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Does it need to go under 'Cancer research' or some other subject that searching on 'Cancer Cures' finds. Chris-nz (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I’m sorry, but I don’t think you understand the criteria that an article needs to meet to be included in Wikipedia. I have left a message on your talk page with a number of helpful links. I particularly suggest that you read the material linked under the “Policies and Guidelines” header. Cheers —Travis^talk 23:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to read the links I left for you on your talk page a couple of creations ago of the article.--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete OR in the extreme -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete non-encyclopedic, clear candidate for prompt deletion. Pundit|utter 23:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The article only has a link to a product cart for completeness, I have no relationship with the supplier, and the link can be removed. --Chris-nz (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It only appears to be Original Research because I've not included links to the Japanese research. --Chris-nz (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This is essentially a Wikipedia-based infomercial. It's definitely original research, and in addition to that, it's actually written in the first person, and signed...Calgary (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor problems that can be easily remedied. I've now added links to a couple of research articles, and photos. --Chris-nz (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the product links --Chris-nz (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as a prostate cancer survivor this entry makes no sense to me and I found nothing here that has any validity or supported by fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevethompson76051 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 14 January 2008

Strong Delete per nom and for reasons already by other users stated above. Mh29255 (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I suggest that the creator set the sourced (with strong emphasis) statements to Agaricus brasiliensis. The mushroom is used in cancer research but I don't think it has been known as a universal cure. I know people are upset with the title and rightly so. But I assume good faith in the creator. I beleive he is simply a survivor telling his story to others but he chose the wrong venue.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Should the page be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Moving_a_page to 'Cancer Research', or userfied ? --123.100.115.141 (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd support userfying, but I think it's gone too far for that now and is probably a lost cause, the decision will be to delete and if so that should apply to the userfied page were it moved in the meantime. It's now been recreated several times, and it's borderline as to whether enough of it can be saved to make an article anyway. And it's on the web in several places now, so there's no problem merging the verifiable information into other articles. So no vote from me, it would at best complicate things needlessly IMO. Andrewa (talk) 12:39, 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 03:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enterprise Markup Language

Enterprise Markup Language (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Potentially non notable markup language. The author, a new editor, was unfamiliar with our notability guidelines, and once I had explained them, admitted that it may not be notable. As such, I am bringing it here so that a wider audience can offer their opinions. J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Got nothing resembling a reliable source in Gsearches for "Enterprise Markup Language" (web, books, news, and scholar). Therefore fails WP:N and likely also fails WP:V. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I see no evidence of notability. So far, EML is a little-used markup language. No prejudice against recreation if notability is established in the future. —Travis^talk 22:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 03:40, 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 03:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jiang Chun-Xuan

Jiang Chun-Xuan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fringe mathematician of questionable notability who claims to have proven most well-known open questions in number theory. Seems to lack independent sources (there are plenty of papers written by the subject, and published by the Institute for Basic Research, a fringe science organization which is itself of questionable notability. Its previous AfD closed as a "keep" for the dubious reason that we'd "like a neutral article about this organization".

Anyway, I recommend we delete the article unless independent sources can be found to meet WP:BIO. GTBacchus^(talk) 21:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Lacks independent sources to pass WP:N or WP:PROF. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. In the current state does not fulfill the Wiki standards for reliable third-party sources. Pundit|utter 23:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fringe without any significant notice anywhere independent.DGG (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Does China Daily count as a reliable source? Because it's clearly a story about him, possibly indicating notability despite his fringiness. According to this link, which appears to be a blog post, he's also appeared on some Phoenix TV show. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 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 Delete. Article deleted and salted by User:Xoloz --Onorem♠Dil 17:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dejan Marić

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

Article about a 15-year old alleged footballer. PROD removed without reason, already speedy deleted once as Dejan Maric. Created by User:Dejan16, all of whose other edits appear to be hoaxes/non-notable as well. fchd (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO as has not played in a fully-professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:BLP due to lack of sources. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Let me get this straight: he plays in the youth academy of a barely notable club? Delete. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, has no place here. Punkmorten (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete BIO and BLP -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Question - he shows up on the roster for FK Igalo but no mention of this is made in the article. Are there two players with the same name, or is this the same person? matt91486 (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Take a look at the history of FK Igalo, and you'll see why he's there. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete when this kid plays in the World Cup or a Premier League Football team then maybe he belongs here. If he can do that before he turns 17 then I would support his inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevethompson76051 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 14 January 2008
• Delete: no assertion of notability per WP:BIO. Mh29255 (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. per Number 57 (even assuming he isn't a hoax). Struway2 (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment it does say he has played for Torquay United —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultra20 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually it says he was on the books of Torquay without ever playing (appearances = 0), which is a) not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO and b) not in fact true ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Are the teams he said hes played for real because i looked up FK Boka Metal Sutorina and they seem to be a real team. Also Newton Abbot A.F.C. seem to be a real team but they are non League comment added by Ultra20 (talk

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thengana

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

Seems like some kind of place or community, I was going to prod it, but I know it will be removed, so placing here instead. I couldn't find any information that it exists, even on a map, fails WP:V Delete Secret ^account 21:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• • It just got proved that it exists, no opinion now, Secret ^account 18:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I was able to come up with very little on Google Maps with nothing else to be found with several other searches. These place entries are part of Google Maps “community maps” feature and, as such, are unverifiable. —Travis^talk 21:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that in the aerial view above, there doesn’t appear to be anything resembling a bank, hospital, nursing home, or other large building. —Travis^talk 21:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Okay, a search on Google India turned up this thoroughly-annotated map of the area. I have yet to find a single official map, however, that includes Thengana. —Travis^talk 15:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 03:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. A simple Google search confirms that it exists and has schools and hospitals. Wouldn't it be less work to do that search rather than nominate for AfD? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The article before didn't tell that info, someone cleanup, but while looking at the sources carefully, it seems like a chunk of the google hits are the hospital, which it's name is Thengana. Secret ^account 00:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I spent 20-30 minutes researching this topic - I’m a bit of a map nut anyway - and the best I came up with is posted above. After another 15 minutes or so tonight, I found this map, which shows a place called Thanganal. Google maps, however, has no entries for that name, and Google only turns up only two India-related hits. Between Google and several other searches, I still can’t find enough information to change my opinion. Maybe someone familiar with Southwestern India can shed some light on this. In the mean time, I’d like to suggest that you please assume good faith on the part of the nominator. Regards —Travis^talk 00:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I’ll also add that I’m loathe to recommend deletion of any village, town, city, or other populated place, but I have found nothing to prove that this is an actual incorporated, government-recognized place. —Travis^talk 03:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. There are plenty of references in the Google search results linked above which refer to Thengana as a location. For example the Kerala Yellow Pages refers to an entry being in Thengana; The Hindu says that the Lourdes English School is in Thengana; a hospital directory says that the Thengana Medical Mission Hospital is in Thengana; an estate agent is selling property in Thengana; The Hindu says that a state minister spoke at a campaign meeting in Thengana. I don't think that there can be any doubt that this place exists - The Hindu in particular is pretty much the gold standard in reliable sources - and existing is usually considered to be enough to keep an article on a populated place. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It is a small town in Kottayam District. The statement is true. But the question is that, do we really need all that information like an yellow page? (check Wikipedia is not a directory). --Avinesh Jose  T  10:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep As a practical matter all villages are considered notable. A sufficient justification for this is to avoid afds over all the hundreds of thousands of them individually. Additionally, there will always be information. But in practice, we need some conventions of this sort, to be able to have time to actually edit WP and discuss the articles needing discussion. I wish we had more of them, either one way or the other, both for notable and for non-notable.DGG (talk) 00:30, 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 KEEP per WP:SNOW. Probably an error on the part of the nominator. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gandalf

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

Carl Sixsmith (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep Arguably one of the most famous literary characters of the 20th century. I'm suggest a speedy closure as per WP:SNOW, especially since the nominator didn't provide any reason for the nomination. JdeJ (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Proded user on talk page to come back and provide rationale for deletion. Redfarmer (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I'm still recommending a speedy closure, though, as this should be a quite obvious case of notability. JdeJ (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Agreed, WP:SNOW. Unless they can come back really fast and provide a rationale that just blows our minds away, this one should be closed. Redfarmer (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: WP:SNOW, WP:POINT. By the way, guys, if no rationale is given, saying it passes WP:N is kinda silly. What really matters is WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV... you know, policies. There's really no reason to even bring up WP:N unless nom does. -- Masterzora (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Quite right, I agree completely. JdeJ (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keeping with WP:AGF, I'd go with this being an accidental nomination since the user did not add a header to the article page nor did they notify any contributors of the deletion. Also, they seem to be a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth, so they should already know this belongs here. Redfarmer (talk) 21:31, 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 Consensus is to Keep, however, I am going to look at full protecting/stubbing article, and see if we can build a version that's acceptable to all. Of course, the result of the ArbCom case could point to a direction for this article to take. SirFozzie (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Sanchez

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

Matt Sanchez is a milblogger, journalist, and war blogger. In the course of a pending arbitration involving the subject directly as a Wikipedia editor, he request the article be deleted. That is detailed here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine/Workshop#Removal request As User:Coredesat said on the RFAR page this looks like the Daniel Brandt, Seth Finkelstein, and Angela Beesley articles. A possibly notable person, who wants his biography removed. Per BLP, I'm nominating this for delete. Lawrence Cohen 20:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Lawrence Cohen 20:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Notability has been established. We shouldn't delete biographies just because someone has gotten tired of playing games with Wikipedia - or rather decides to play a new game. Aleta (Sing) 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• We should keep this article as for current policy regarding notability. I fear notability has been establish using reliable sources and independent coverage and is clear. Policy won't allow our deletion here. I do sympathize with the subject. M-ercury at 21:28, January 13, 2008

• Delete without prejudice to recreation as a neutral stub. Per WP:BLP, the subject's wishes can be taken into account when making decisions related to the article. Notability, while sourced in the article, is fairly marginal overall. We should honor the subject's wishes and delete the article, although if a neutral stub can be written (the history should be left deleted due to attempts to insert BLP violations), it can be recreated. --Coredesat 21:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you show marginal notability? M-ercury at 21:59, January 13, 2008

• Keep - Notabilility has been established in multiple, non-trivial references. Not only to his porn career which by itself is notable, but in addition to his award from CPAC which isn't quite very notable, to his protest at Columbia, to his blogging, to the *strenuous* attempts by certain Wikipedians to protect him from himself. It's quite possible that the last item by itself would establish notability here, in a belly-button-gazing article. By the way his appearance on Hannity & Colmes ? That's awfully notable. Wjhonson (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's times like these where I really wish Wikipedia had a "no double jeopardy!" rule. The whole "let's list it at AFD until we get the result we want" thing can get very tiring. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 22:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The previous two deletion discussions were in March and April of 2007, at which time the article was arguably in better condition than now, without the intervening four months of full protection and reams of nastiness. Nor was the subject of the bio asking for deletion; he has explicitly requested it now, and under BLP policy, the request of a marginally notable figure should be taken under consideration. This is not a case of "AfD it until it dies". Horologium (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per above arguements about the subject's notability. Please note that the BLP deletion standards have been changed to state that deletion should be considered if the request is reasonable, and it doesn't look as though this request is. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep You don't edit an article about you yourself and fight to have all the bad things removed, and then when the heat is on, decide you want it gone altogether. Additionally, no action should be taken on this article while a related Abrcom case is going on. I imagine someone else would recreate it as a general article just like every other porn star, gay or straight, on Wikipedia because that's where his notability ultimately lies. ALLSTARecho 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination, also per WP:NOT#Not a battleground, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI. This particular biography is a BLP hornet's nest and in a year of trying Wikipedia has been unable to establish any stable neutral version and the talk page long since degenerated into a venue for personal attacks. The subject is the target of a hate site and is proving himself unable to adapt to Wikipedia site standards. Overall value to encyclopedic completeness: minimal. Overall drain on volunteer time: substantial. Durova^Charge! 22:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Also of note: Wjhonson has made 71 edits to this page and 51 edits to its talk.[1] Aleta has made 121 edits to this article's talk.[2] Allstarecho has made 29 edits to this article's talk.[3] After 21 edits of my own to this article's talk (I answered a content RFC three months ago and followed up in attempts to resolve the dispute), I really don't see any other workable solution than deletion. And personally, I'd prefer to keep this salted. Durova^Charge! 22:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • There is no benefit to the project to constantly describe criticism sites as "hate" sites. Pwok's site grew out of the constant conflicts about this article, and especially from the unnecesarily aggressive attempt to allow Sanchez to have his way at the expense of the project. Wjhonson (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Allow me to clarify: the site is indeed a hate site, operated by a banned user who evades the ban continuously, who attempted to disrupt the arbitration case, and who makes ad hominem attacks against editors who are even neutral about Matt Sanchez. That banned user is responsible for his or her actions. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Durova^Charge! 02:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is not a soapbox, then you shouldn't be soapboxing about PWOK's so-called "hate site," should you? Or is some soapboxing more equal than others? Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • Allow me to clarify as well. The site in not a hate site. The user was banned based on conflicts with this particular article, which I would point out, we are still having after a year or more. Obviously it's not yet become clear that there are people here who refuse to allow Wikipedia to become a series of hagiographies. The fact that a notable person stuck their foot in their own mouth, is their problem not ours. Our project reports the evidence, we don't hide it simply because a LP wishes they hadn't said something. We do not allow Anne Coulter, George Bush, nor any other other BLP that level of leeway. The sources speak for themselves. Some people want to silence certain reliable sources, that level of censorship has no business here. Wjhonson (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
          • If Matt Sanchez's conduct were the only issue, he would have been community banned months ago and the problem would be resolved. See the precedents cited in the opening nomination statement and site policy for the basis: comparison to a United States president is a straw man argument. Durova^Charge! 05:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Redirecting the argument is not helpful. Certain editors want to cite and quote only sources which *already* agree with their pre-conceived ideas, and discard others which do not. That is not the purpose of this project. We should be focusing on *which* sources are reliable sources, and that issue should be taken to RS not refactored for this one case alone. If the Alan Colmes (Radio) Show is not a reliable source for the fact that he admitted being a prostitute than we are all in serious trouble. Now we have to redact from five thousand articles statements the subject made about themselves even if confused or under stress or whatever the argument is supposed to be, which I fail to understand. Several well-sourced statements have been excised simply because he complained. Sanchez should be treated no differently than any other contentious BLP and yet he is being so differently treated, imho. Wjhonson (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Aleta (Sing) 22:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • • • • • • • Please review my past BLP AFD nominations. I support this for precisely the same reasons as the previous ones, with a few extra reasons to boot. I have no involvement in the content dispute, but I know a long term WP:NOT#Not a battlefield problem when I see one. Durova^Charge! 06:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Notability established and chock full of reliable sources. While I sympathize with the subject's desire to bury his past, he is notable for both his acting career and what he has been doing in the political field. And for the record, I have made no edits to the article and perhaps two to the talk page. Jeffpw (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. The subject is of marginal notability, and has personally requested that we delete the article. We should honor his request. Per WP:BLP: "Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid." I've done extensive research on the Sanchez situation, and have experienced firsthand the battles on the article's talkpage. The article has been a magnet for SPA editors who are using it as a soapbox and Battleground, and as a tool with which to harass Sanchez, who has now threatened legal action. Further, some of the "Keep" comments above are from some of these same SPAs, so I recommend that the closing admin here take a look at contribution history when making their decision. To be clear: Though Sanchez does pass WP:BIO, he does it in a marginal fashion. He is not such a notable individual that we have to have an article on him. He was in a handful of porn videos, and has been in the news a few times, but per WP:BLP1E, that doesn't mean he's majorly notable. There has never been a third-party biography on him, in any medium. Further, deleting this article will help to de-escalate this dispute. Months of time have been wasted on the battles at the Matt Sanchez article, and the amount of attacks and harassment and speculative defamation that have taken place at the article's talkpage is simply staggering. The subject just wants to be done with it, and has requested that we delete the article, so let's just honor that and move on. --Elonka 00:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Elonka, I think you need to go back and look at the contributions history of everyone above you because not one of them is a SPA user so saying some of the "Keep" comments above are from some of these same SPAs is false. Every single person above you has significant contribution history to other articles and talk pages. Secondly, 41 porn videos is hardly a handful of porn videos. ALLSTARecho 00:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And anyone who knows the first thing about that industry knows how much footage gets reused. Per the dead trees standard I proposed when I nominated the Seth Finkelstein, Daniel Brandt, and Rand Fishkin biographies for deletion, no paper and ink encyclopedia is likely to carry an article about Matt Sanchez. Not even an encyclopedia of porn. If you can find one, I'll change my vote. Otherwise this page is more trouble than it's worth. Durova^Charge! 01:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you link the standard? M-ercury at 01:06, January 14, 2008

Mercury, I explained it in every courtesy BLP deletion I've proposed. Marginal notability is nearly meaningless because it means too many different things to different people. So I sought something that's confirmable and not prone to slippery slope arguments. Durova^Charge! 01:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I was unfamiliar with the phrase, but I read to quick and now I realize that I can just go to those AFD's to understand it. Pardon the misunderstanding. Regards, M-ercury at 01:31, January 14, 2008

Ms. Dunin, Sanchez appears in more than 40 porn videos. Either that's more than a handful, or someone has big hands. He was also a prostitute, as verified by his own article at Salon.com and in his interview with Alan Colmes. The subject of an article shouldn't be allowed to dictate either its contents or whether there's an article. Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Aleta (Sing) 01:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Aleta -- notability is clear, reliable sources abound, and the individual's desire not to be fully covered here shouldn't outweigh our duty to write a complete encyclopedia. And, for the record, I've never edited anything related to this individual. Ashdog137 (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per sources. Epbr123 (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Aleta (Sing) 01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Although I have not edited this article, I agree with everyone else: as long as we are being careful about BLP issues, and notability is being satisfied, thats all we need to care about. If Britney Spears wanted her article deleted too, we wouldnt do that as well. Legal threats should not dictate any of what Wikipedia does. We have always had the policy of saying no to legal threats. Maybe Jimbo should be asked about this. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If Britney Spears wanted her article deleted too, we wouldnt do that as well. What a ridiculous strawman argument. Britney Spears is not marginally notable. No one thinks that we should delete her article at her (hypothetical) request. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • IceColdBeer, it is not a 'ridiculous' argument, please keep your personal attacks to yourself. Sanchez doesnt seem marginally notable. According to RS, all you need are multiple non-trivial reliable sources. There are more than 2 of those in the reference section, e.g. marinecorpstimes.com,columbiaspectator.com,navytimes.com, mediamatters.org. He's also appeared on Fox News and other places. I dont think this is "marginal" notability though I agree, if it is found to be, it would be best to delete the article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep given the number of reliable sources cited in the article. Article can be protected if necessary given BLP concerns. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and create a protected redirect to Matt Sanchez Controversy or a similar title, a new article confined to the controversy in which he was engulfed when his past was revealed by gay activists to discredit him. There is not enough reliably sourced information beyond the outing (critics who have edited Wikipedia have consistently deprecated references to his activities as an embedded journalist) and his three-year career as a porn actor produced no noteworthy films (not a single film in his filmography has a Wikipedia article). This article is by far the most contentious article in which I have been involved, and after informal mediation, an RFC, and an Arbcom case, there still seems to be little hope of resolving some of the core issues behind this article. Deleting it and starting over (with neither Sanchez nor the publisher of an attack site dedicated to personally destroying Sanchez editing on Wikipedia—they are both indefinitely blocked) with a different focus (an incident, rather than a half-assed biography) will do much to ratchet down the hostility level on the project. The level of hatred this article has engendered approaches the level of The Troubles and 9/11 conspiracy theory articles, and is not far behind the Armenia/Azerbaijan flailex. Wikipedia is not a battleground, but this article and its 12 pages of talk archives have been. Horologium (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  An interesting idea, but what was the "incident"? That he wrote columns in the New York Post and Marine Corps Times? That he was a gay porn star? That he appeared on multiple television shows? That he received an award while attending the Conservative Political Action Conference? That he was the subject of a Marine Corps inquiry about the gay porn acting? That he was a source for the Weekly Standard's investigation of Scott Beauchamp? That's all got reliable source coverage, and it's hard to say it was all one incident. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  I was thinking primarily about the disclosure of his past (first revealed on a stridently leftist gay blog) and the fallout from it. *I* agree that the Beauchamp incident is important (and apparently, so did Franklin Foer, who singled out Sanchez in his editorial retraction of the whole Beauchamp affair), but the relevant citation were deleted from Matt Sanchez (and a {{fact}} tag was slapped on in its place) and Sanchez's critics have (repeatedly) removed every trace of his involvement from Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy, which leads me to believe that it must not be terribly relevant. There is virtually no sourceable information about his life before the outing (despite his porn career, there is little in the way of reliable information, since the films were evidently non-notable; none have Wikipedia articles). His critics here on Wikipedia have been quite insistent that his current career is non-notable (because he writes for partisan sources such as The Weekly Standard and www.rightwingnews.com, which are not particularly notable or reliable), which means that nothing other than his porn career (and the escorting allegations) is acceptably sourced. That would seem to fall under BLP1E. If there had been an entry for Rod Majors or Pierre LaBranche (or for that matter, for Sanchez) prior to the outing, I wouldn't argue for deletion, but Matt Sanchez, the now-redirected Matthew Sanchez, and Rod Majors—created as a redirect— were all created within 30 hours of each other, after the blog outed him; a redirect from Pierre LaBranche came along 6 weeks later. Notably, several of the people who are arguing for retention are fairly open about their desire to keep this controversy on Wikipedia for partisan purposes; a look at some of the current discussions on Talk:Matt Sanchez (particularly Talk:Matt Sanchez#Work as an escort) might be illuminating. It appears that the only reason Sanchez was targeted in the first place was because he received an award at the same conservative political conference that Ann Coulter used a gay slur. Horologium (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  The individual bits of his life do seem non-notable - he was a minor porn star, he was a marine, he writes a blog, he writes for magazines, he won a political award. There are plenty of minor porn stars, and marines, and bloggers, and journalists in the world. However, together, they add up to notability. There aren't many marine porn stars. There aren't many porn stars writing for conservative journals. (By the way, The Weekly Standard is certainly notable in and of itself; maybe not all of its contributors are.) Most important, whatever we think about him, we have to reflect what the world thinks about him; we have to reflect our reliable sources, and it's pretty clear that enough reliable sources have written enough about him that we should have some kind of article here. I see your point that most of Sanchez's notability comes from his "outing", but I can't see doing justice to the complexity of the coverage that he has gotten in an article merely on the outing. But I haven't been a participant in the struggle here. Give it a try, in your user space or something, if it keeps the important information and can reduce the drama here, we might be able to do it. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  Horologium, I added the fact tag in the lede because I was not finding anything from a RS to back up the Sanchez was involved with the Beauchamp controversy, you apparently know more about it per "*I* agree that the Beauchamp incident is important (and apparently, so did Franklin Foer, who singled out Sanchez in his editorial retraction of the whole Beauchamp affair)". If you could address the sourcing concerns here or on the talk page so that information could be correctly sourced it would help. Based on Sanchez's talk page behavior and other experiences it seemed like it was something he was inserting himself into rather than actually being a part of, the four sources holding up that material are all blogs which seems to nt hold up when the rest of the article needs better sourcing. Benjiboi 23:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  Done. And the vast majority of sources in that article are total junk. There's about a half-dozen references that are appropriate; all the rest are blogs, discussion fora, YouTube videos of dubious authenticity, and partisan hatchet jobs from one side or the other. Media Matters for America and World Net Daily should not be used to substantiate anything. If they claimed the sky was blue, I'd have to get my eyes checked. Horologium (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of Media Matters for America is that they are principally an archive of material from other places, especially videos. Exactly what from that organization about Mr. Sanchez do you distrust, or are you distrusting them simply because of their political slant? Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• BTW, further discussion on the talk page has convinced me that this current article has become a Coatrack, since any attempt to add information to the article that does not denigrate Sanchez is going to be loudly opposed by a small, vocal minority. I am aware that WP:COAT is an essay, but this is almost a perfect fit; no need to involve the tailor on this one. Horologium (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  Thank you for providing that ref, as you can see i fully support it being added. I do, however, disagree about the cabal theory and, in fact, have seen a concerted effort by quite a few editors to work with Sanchez despite his unique style, to improve the article. I'm now convinced that once this latest round of drama is complete that the article will be improved as several new refs have been found thus negating the need for some of the circular conversations. Benjiboi 02:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, marginally notable biographies should be deleted at subject's request. --MPerel 02:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete due to the marginal notability of the subject, we should honor his request. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - the subject is most certainly notable. Even though his porn career wouldn't meet notability standards on its own, the fact that he is now a contributor at such ultra-conservative mainstream publications like The Weekly Standard makes him notable. I'd also like to note that the most egregious BLP violations were committed by the subject of this article. The subject was allowed to add poorly sourced, potentially libelous claims about other people to his bio. But the subject's BLP violations were never challenged by any of the administrators who are now rushing to his defense and pointing fingers at other editors.Reelm (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Plenty of notability to sustain an article. Involved in notable controversies, author for notable publication, appearances on notable talk shows, etc... Gamaliel (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: Per Durova's "More Trouble Than It's Worth". That should actually be a criterion. This might just be the poster child for MTTIW. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Seems perfectly well-sourced to me. Notability established and all negative information sourced according to BLP. As for the "More Trouble Than It's Worth" argument do you really think that a guy who files complaints because he believes people called him stupid is going to leave those alone who he can't get along with because we bargain with him? Has Brandt gone away? Finkelstein? No. You are bargaining with the trolls and that is a dangerous path. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Aleta and Economics Guy (and I think Wjhonson's proposal, below, makes excellent sense). Robertissimo (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep For above reasons. --Eleemosynary (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notability established, with reliable sources. Matt's deletion request should not be given much weight: If it had been made when the page was new, then fine, but the context in which the request has been made (both with Matt having made legal threats and with an ArbComm decision pending), and the effort he has put into editing it massively reduce the weight that should be given to such a request. EdChem (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, notability established. Thank goodness "more trouble than it's worth" is not and will never become a policy, or people who don't like articles would be able to delete them just by causing trouble. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 17:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable at the very least as a pornographic actor who has been featured multiple times in mainstream media. However I think the deletion decision is not urgent and should be put on hold pending outcome of the pending arbitration.Typing Monkey - ^{(type to me)} 18:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The notability of the subject is borderline. As a pornographic actor he was appeared in some mainstream media but has won no awards or recieved the sort of third party recognition that would make him very notable - at the fringe of WP:PORNBIO. Similarly I don't think he has great notability as a journalist or member of the US military. These elements all have to be scraped together to produce what looks like an article, but the result is unsurprisingly a BLP minefield. Given that notability is borderline, there are serious BLP issues with the article and that the subject wishes it deleted, I think this article should be deleted. WjBscribe 19:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree that his writings and military career are non-notable but the gay porn star turned conservative award-winner after his actions at Columbia U sure seem to add up. Also agree, in part, that if we delete this than the story is exported to Rod Majors article so Sanchez's wish to remove his past, or more accurately, remove the aspects of his past he wishes weren't public while replacing them with things he wishes were, is denied. The reason this article is worse than before (not sure if I agree with that) is only because Sanchez himself has waged his own personal disinformation campaign and wasn't kept in check throughout the events. The anonymous IPs who vandalize can be dealt with and many editors have shown a great willingness to ensure that every word is accurate and that assertions are sourced. The only thing that has stood in the way of the article improving, IMHO, has been Sanchez, whose actions have resulted in the article being frozen until the arbcom is up. Based on his previous record I expect that this article will survive and the editors who have spent way too much time trying to reason with him will quickly correct the outstanding errors with Sanchez in some manner kept in check. Any editors new to this ongoing saga need only quickly look at the talk pages archives to see what has transpired thus far. Benjiboi 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - notability (though subjective) has been established. this guy has several interesting facets, that i'm sure will make for a fascinating character study by someone. --emerson7 03:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The news stories in the reference section are sufficient to establish notability. "More trouble than it's worth" isn't a generally accepted principle (almost every controversy on wikipedia is more trouble than it's worth). Fireplace (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I think we all, in our hearts know, that *if* this article is deleted, that an article will most likely be created by the porn editors at Rod Majors. And any simple google will reveal his true name of Matt Sanchez. Since this has been revealed in nationally published reliable sources, we cannot, in complete integrity prevent it's inclusion in his porn career article. It would then be just a small step back to the full-blown war again. It seems to me, quite natural, that we should instead, perma-ban Sanchez, and then work together on the article. Eighty-eight percent of all the disruption has been the direct cause of Sanchez' war. I'm sure if he were out-of-the-way, we could get back to negotiating the article in Good Faith using Reliable Sources. So I believe all of the above is and will be moot following ArbCom's decision to perma-ban him. Wjhonson (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment As this process is likely to finish within a week and the Arbcom case is not I find it hard to tie the two together. I feel we should keep that case in mind only and base our decisions on what this article can be. Benjiboi 21:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. On careful consideration of the sources, I'd say he's a person of marginal notability: that is, all else being equal, my opinion would be 'Weak Keep'. Many of the sources are irrelevant or have insignificant coverage (and a couple are broken), but a few of them do provide evidence of notability. However, there are additional factors to consider: (i) this article, for whatever reason, seems to be a magnet for edit warring and vandalism, and (ii) the subject of the article has requested to have it deleted. Neither of those factors would be sufficient to delete on their own; but in combination with each other and the relatively minor notability of the subject (i.e. we wouldn't lose much if this was deleted), they convince me that the best option here is deletion. Terraxos (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As an aside: if this isn't deleted, my second preference (which might get slightly more of a consensus) would be to merge this article into Columbia University. Sanchez's only real notability is tied up with the University, so this content might be best as a subsection of that article. Terraxos (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. To address "for whatever reason, seems to be a magnet for edit warring and vandalism", is because his story is in the middle of the present-day US culture wars, gays in the miltary, free speech, gays/liberals vs. conservatives et al. Much of the vandalism and edit warring is due to the subject himself. I've seen many articles stabilize after the articles have been improved with good editing and sourcing, I expect this one to be the same. I can't imagine this article being merged into the Columbia University except as a sentence about their updating policy on veterans. Most of the media refs refere to him as a former gay porn star rather than as a current Columbia University student. Benjiboi 23:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It'd be equally silly to merge him at List of Columbia University people alongside six United States presidents, 39 Nobel Prize winners, three current United States senators (and tons of past ones), and 16 CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. That's why deletion is the commonsense alternative. They're actually notable; he barely is. Durova^Charge! 05:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Though clever and mildly cheeky, there's a bit of a failure in logic and imagination with that last comment I'm afraid. Certainly, merging Sanchez into List of Columbia University people would be quite silly at this point given the nature of that list as currently designed. Of course this does not mean that "deletion is the commonsense alternative." Were that the case, any Columbia graduate who had achieved notability outside of elite categories such as Nobel Prize winners, CEO's, Senators, and all the other mover-and-shaker subsections that are currently the sole components of List of Columbia University people could not have an article. But that's not the kind of encylopedia we have. Admittedly there is no current subsection on the Columbia list for "porn stars" or "bloggers" but that fact is hardly a good reason to delete this article. I'm sure there are any number of Columbia grads who blog and/or work in porn/worked in porn in the past and its only a matter of time before our "List of Columbia people" recognizes that fact.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Most of the cause for his notability has past. All the incidents turned out to be relatively minor in the long run. Aatombomb (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Sanchez is notable which is what is most important as far as I'm concerned. He made a pretty large splash in multiple media outlets even before he was outed (I remember this very distinctly apart from anything happening on Wikipedia). Perhaps his notability is mostly in the past as User:Aatombomb suggests, but notability is not something that expires. I am generally very loath to delete (and salt!, as some are suggesting) articles about notable people simply because the subject does not want an article and/or because the article is creating a bunch of annoying drama (the two seem to go together quite often). The more we do this kind of thing the bigger problems we'll create for ourselves down the road for reasons that I would hope are patently obvious. Those suggesting that the subject is only "kinda notable" and therefore we should just do what the subject of the article wants are not really standing on policy. If a person meets our notability standards--as this person clearly does I think--then as a general rule we should not delete their article. Whether they are Matt Sanchez or Al Gore is irrelevant--we cannot let "this isn't quite so important, and it's causing a headache" be a guide for how we write the encyclopedia. Of course there might be exceptions, but I don't even know specifically what those would be and I certainly don't see them here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep with the option of creating a similar article suggested by Horologium as Matt Sanchez Controversy. A full biography may not be possible, but Sanchez is a public figure, is promoting himself as a public figure, has addressed his past through mass media, and was present during a public statement made by Ann Coulter that represent a notable disconnect in the conservative priorities in the US. Wikipedia should not duck controversy because the subject of the article is attempting to spin his own past. From what I have read of the arguments surrounding the article, much of what Sanchez claims to suffer from is caused by his own hand. --Moni3 (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, but protect for a long period - read the article for why it's a BLP rubbish magnet. However, he's inarguably quite notable - David Gerard (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep with the restoration of the verified material about Sanchez's prostitution; with an accurate count of his porn videos (I've seen 41, 45, and 49 in recent days), and a videogrqaphy that's equivalent to the other porn videograqphies on Wikipedia; the addition of a section dealing with Wikipedia's own censorship of the article on half of Mr. Sanchez. This situation has been reprehensible. In particular, Wikipedia's conduct has been as bad as it gets and must be redressed. Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Once the Arbcom case is resolved (likely after this process is resolved) the article's protection should roll back to allow consensus edits to ensue including sourced references to his escorting. Verifiability (using reliable sources) not truth dictates whether we can state how many porn videos he acted in, non-wiki sites can list over a hundred but if reliable sources only document 20 then we reflect that, same as what applies to all articles. There is no reason, and again, no reliable sources, to delve into perceptions of Sanchez's treatment or behavior on wikipedia so those interested would have to do their own original research on those matters. Benjiboi 00:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that you've made up your mind to exclude facts, right? There is verified record (IMDB and IAFD) showing more than 40 gay porn videos with Sanchez's stage names in the cast. Only a Wikipedian determined to exclude facts could argue that this somehow isn't factual. Bear in mind that Wikipedia has a rule called "get it right." Maybe you overlooked it?Tennessee Jed 4415 (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You can save your snarky comments and instead assume good faith as my record on this article has been to lean on sources and favor consensus. I have chaanged my opinion more than once when presented with a good source or compelling information. If those sources are seen as reliable and there is consensus to reference one or both than I would certainly support inclusion. I know IMDB isn't always seen as solid but for our use here could potentially be used. Benjiboi 02:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Note to closing admin Tennessee Jed 4415 has been blocked indefinitely for attempting to post private and possibly hacked personal information about Matt Sanchez.[4] Durova^Charge! 16:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Notable. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Borderline notable (the sources really aren't that good), so if he wants it to be deleted, it ought to be. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Really? Marine Times, CNN, The Advocate and quite a few others all seem to easily pass wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. Benjiboi 14:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• The only CNN article I see referenced is about Ann Coulter, not Sanchez. If you look through the sources that really are devoted to him, they are quite poor. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• The event being cited featured both Coulter and Sanchez and pretty much every other ref is about him so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the sourcing. Except for some blog posts, which in their defense he is a milblogger, I think they all support what they are being cited for and all seem to be reliable. Benjiboi 15:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Notablilty established. — Save_Us † 15:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It's notable. Reinoe (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinoe (talk • contribs) 16:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Notability is well established. As in the Angela Beesley incident, we don't delete articles just because the subject doesn't like it. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• This seems like an ideal article to keep but protect per David Gerard. We should have this protection option for problematic BLPs that make the notability cut by some margin, which this does. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete: We should honor the user's request. If you wish to bring ethics into this matter, look no further than the golden rule. No user would like this brought upon themselves. Furthermore, per Durova's "More Trouble Than It's Worth". That should actually be a criterion. Objection2000 (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. We don't delete articles or lower or chnage wikipedia's standards to suit the subject of an article. If Ann Coulter wanted her article deleted would we do so? No. I do agree that the subject of the article and all the ensuing drama is far more trouble than almost any article is worth but in the process I have also learned a lot about editing and was introduced to the Military Times as a source and refreshed my understanding of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Benjiboi 04:56, 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. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hew Scott

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

This was tagged for CSD, but I think that this writer may have a claim to notability, as he's apparently written multiple books widely in use. This is strictly a procedural nom. Keilana^talk 20:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and reference Article claims subject has written material that is "extensively used by historians". --Kannie | talk 20:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. There are a number of references to Hew Scott and Fasti Ecclesiae in Google Books and Google Scholar as well in a more general Google search, which suggest notability. Plus he is in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep He wrote a well known book, if only well known in smaller circles, the circles are large enough. There's probably good biographical material on him for making the article bigger and more useful. --Amaltheus (talk) 05:47, 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 keep for now to allow this article to be cleaned up Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Winky D

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

Non notable musician whose sole achievement seems to have been to win a sort of battle of the bands in Zimbabwe. No evidence that any of his albums have done well. RJC ^Talk 20:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep and cleanup possible copyvio. YouTube has a couple of video clips of him appearing on ZTV (Zimbabwe TV?) so he's got media coverage. Also more google hits than the average non-notable musician. Pburka (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite This article doesn't meet neutral point of view standards. --Kannie | talk 20:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:39, 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 No consensus, default to keep. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Kazan explosion

2008 Kazan explosion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable incident which happens that way almost daily and articles like this aree better placed at Wikinews. Matthiasb-DE (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Not Notable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or possibly merge with Kazan. Pburka (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Kannie | talk 20:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep (as I'm a creator). It was second major tragedy in Russia since Arkhangelsk explosion of 2004. The information about this explosion had Russia-wide resonance. So, many tragedies, which has lesser fatal result or tyhe same are represented in wikipedia. So, if we have an article per every Guantanamo prisoner such as Airat Vakhitov, why we should avoid of such articles????--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 15:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So, if it will be decided to delete an article, could you place it at Wikinews, as I don't kow how to do it.--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 15:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I find that many articles from Category:Gas explosions depict events of the same importance, for instance North Division Street explosion.--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 18:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The latter isn't notable as well. --Matthiasb-DE (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, clearly a notable incident. Everyking (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Eight fatalities is a fairly large disaster, and had the accident had happened in the United States or England, I think we would be keeping this without question. (For comparison see Charleston Sofa Super Store fire for example.) The large press coverage is sufficient to pass verifiability requirements. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, reasonably large disaster suspected to be terrorism, lot of independent coverage. Don't see the need to delete it Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable disaster.Biophys (talk) 00:25, 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 keep. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nokia 6170

Nokia 6170 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable cellular phone. This article has been tagged for references for more than six months, but hasn't yet been improved. Too few substantial and reliable references exist to establish notability for this phone. Wikipedia is not a cell phone guide. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Nominator is obviously making no effort to find better sources himself. I make just a single search and turn up hundreds of candidates. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --Kannie | talk 20:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep almost any Nokia phone is going to be notable, and Wikipedia has no deadline. — brighterorange (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A product from a major manufacturer is notable, and there are references. I should have deleted the tag long ago! But there would be better ones around. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Yes, there are references, but 1 is from Nokia's website, the other two are reviews from sites that are dedicated to this and do the exact same to EVERY cellphone within their scope--borderline, at best, but that appears to be where the guidelines themselves seem to be a little bit iffy on if that's passable.
• Merge or Delete I saw all of the Nokia phone pages up for deletion, and I figure that none of them deserve their own article due to notability issues. But, if these items must absolutely be on Wikipedia, then put them all on one page, or on the Nokia page itself. If no notability is still established, then delete this one and all the rest of them. Redphoenix526 (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, from WP:CORP:

"Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy. In that case, the discussion of the company's products and services should be broken out from the company article in summary style.

If the product or service is notable, it can be broken out into its own article. If it is not notable, it should not be broken out into its own article but should have whatever verifiable information about it that exists presented within an article that has a broader scope, such as an article that deals with all of the company's products and services."

Now, for the first bolded part, I can see not breaking this out--Nokia's article is likely too big for this. The second, the entire paragraph, demonstrates that notability MUST be established by the subject in order to have it's own article (debatable that this has been done with current refs, and I can't find any others), if not, what is there should be moved to a broader article, the example given was all products/services, but with something like this, families of phones would likely be sufficient.

I'm not going to provide a distinct Keep/Delete opinion, as it really is not clear in my opinion whether notability has been established, and the open discussion in the Village Pump is covering that matter; however, I will put what I would reference out there in hope that it can help with a decision here. Aeternitas827 (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Notable enough. Thanks for reading, Thundermaster^TRUC 08:32, 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. KrakatoaKatie 02:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wood Street, Cardiff

Wood Street, Cardiff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

PROD removed by author. There is no indication that this street is notable, which would require "significant coverage in reliable independent sources". A guide to the precedents set in previous AfDs can be found in WP:OUTCOMES#Places, which says "Larger neighborhoods are acceptable, but its name must have verifiable widespread usage; smaller suburbs should generally be listed under the primary city article." Other relevant guidelines are in WP:LOCAL and WP:NOT#DIR; this article doesn't qualify. JohnCD (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Poorly formatted article. --Kannie | talk 20:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator- streets aren't generally notable. J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - hardly a WP:50k street. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 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 keep and cleanup. KrakatoaKatie 02:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dunne & Raby

Dunne & Raby (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Probably not notable. Redbull47 (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep If they have work in the permanent collections of MOMA and the V&A - two of the most prominent design museums in the world, I'd say they're notable. I've already declined a speedy deletion (A7) on this article once. Acroterion _(talk) 20:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This for a start. I'll source the article as time permits. Acroterion _(talk) 20:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

*Delete per nom. No reliable sources to substantiate any claims of notability. The various museums listed in the article are just listed as "Partners" on their (atrociously designed, if I may say so) website - as a minimum, we'll need proof that their work is indeed in the permanent collections, and I'm not sure that will be enough, in and of itself, to ensure notability. Tevildo (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep They've shown at MoMA, V&A, Pompidou Centre, have at least one reference available The Independent), 35000 ghits, plus several published books. They're notable. freshacconcispeaktome 22:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Although the original article as submitted to AfD required some cleaning up to clarify claims (they were not the sole authors of the MoMA piece, the Pompidou show was a group exhibition), the references now supplied should be sufficient to justify notability.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral. Citations are getting better, but there's still some way to go. The MOMA piece is credited to Michael Anastassiades, and the Independent article describes them as "The contenders with the lowest profile" for an award that isn't sufficiently notable to have own article; they were only on the short-list for it, in any case. Tevildo (talk) 23:11, 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. KrakatoaKatie 02:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conformation Absentiality Chaos Factor

Conformation Absentiality Chaos Factor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Difficult to tell what this article is about but it is something in the social sciences. Pure hoax. Google knows nothing about it. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete At best, original research. No evidence the concept has any currency in social science. Edison (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This has been dumped into Wikinews as well. A hoax. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• I was just about to note the same thing as GeorgeLouis. A hoaxer has once again made it easy for us by including a citation. In this case the citation points to volume #1 of a periodical named "Social Sciences and the World", published in 2007. I can find no evidence that any such periodical exists. This is a hoax. Uncle G (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's already been up four days too long. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - a hoax, even social scientists don't write quite this badly - I wonder if it was written by one of those postmodernism generator programs? Anyway, even the author admits "CACF is not well-documented". JohnCD (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 16:18, 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 Delete, CSD G1 by Jayron32, non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Amazing Race

My Amazing Race (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Bit short on context but I gather this is somebody's vanity page about a fantasy role-playing game. Has already been speedily deleted here, here and here. Since the author has whined on my user_talk page, I am giving them an AfD just to show that the feelings about the article are general. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you it is not nonsense sir it is not at all It is a Metropolis Forums race if you want a link to its race I will give you it but please dont delete it

It is apart of Forumsnet Races too here is a link to it !! http://imanewuseramazingrace.a.wiki-site.com/index.php/Other_Fantasy_Amazing_Races —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwi Jaden (talk • contribs) 19:57, 13 January 2008,

Thank you sir I dont want it deleted it is not a vanity page and also why are you deleting my games but not the other Forumsnet Games are you picking on me or what!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwi Jaden (talk • contribs) 20:02, 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 merge as per consensus, I would recommend starting a merge discussion, if that turns out to be fruitless, then you may start another AfD in a few weeks. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minerva class battleship

Minerva class battleship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A fictional (anime) type of ship with apparently no real-world significance or analysis as required by WP:FICTION. From the navbox, it appears that we have 25 articles all about ships from this same series, which maybe should also be AFD'd. I have no background in this but it looks like fancruft to an outside observer. Could it be transwikied anywhere? Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up. We already have the general article List of Cosmic Era warships and spacecraft, which covers all the ship classes (though it is also tagged as being written from an in-universe perspective....). Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to List of Cosmic Era warships and spacecraft. Fails WP:FICTION and WP:N, and is pretty much fancruft with a side of OR. Collectonian (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect I really don't see much worth salvaging from the original article, but it completely fails WP:PLOT. --Farix (Talk) 21:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 12:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect per concerns noted above regarding policies and guidance. Hiding T 12:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also, I agree that the other stand-alone articles in the template should be deleted and maybe even some of the list articles. Doctorfluffy (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Subject is the central scene for much of its setting, comparable to the Enterprise in Star Trek, of the Millenium Falcon in Star Wars. The setting itself is one of the most successful franchises in Japanese animation. Of course, the article asserts none of this and is lacking in sources. One difficulty is the best sources are likely on Japanese and will take more effort to find. Edward321 (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to List of Cosmic Era warships and spacecraft. A shame that there's not much worth salvaging here. Maikeru (talk) 03:41, 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. KrakatoaKatie 03:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It Was Always Me

It Was Always Me (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

CSD-A7 denied. Film that was never released, WP:NF says it shouldn't have an article unless the failure of the film was notable. WP:N requires reliable, independent sources, of which I can't find many through online searching. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 19:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find any reliable sources attesting to the existence of this. It doesn't even appear on Dushku's IMDB page. Fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It Was Always Me - Don't Delete. Hi, this is in regards to the page for It Was Always Me. It has been tagged for deletion, I want you to not delete it. I have added enough info on there proving that it is a valid film that has starred name talent. By not deleting the information on it, it can still 'exist' and will therefore hopefully be released commercially in some form at some point. Fans of the actors involved, or who may be interested in the filmmaker[s] behind the project still need to have online proof that this film was made. Lol, lets not make this movie a total 'ghost film'.—Preceding unsigned comment added by YuleT (talk • contribs) 01:42, January 14, 2008

Umm, according to those "reviews" (which appear to be Usenet posts), the film features one "Elizabeth Doushku", not Eliza Dushku. My opinion remains unchanged. Deor (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've struck out YuleT's recommendation to keep since he has decided to change it to delete, as seen below. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete.... Hmmm... this one gets my Spidey-Sense tingling. Checking out the reviews provided, the first one is a hoax: Claimed by a columnist for the Toronto Horizon, which apparently was a made up paper. The movie posters pictured in the article DO feature Eliza Dushku, but I own some nice graphics programs too. The second reference provided by the article, apparently from a paper called the Quebec Daily is apparently also bullshit as well. The third reference shows me NOTHING meaningful beyond a bunch of bland quotes from people who may or may not be real, and who may or may not have said them. IMDB has nothing on this, and a google search: [5] turns up NOTHING but a few blogs, which may or may not have been taken in by the hoax. What do y'all think? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's also rather odd that the only reviews anywhere on the Web by Magda Olufson and Erich Morgan are the reviews cited in this article. And just for the hell of it, I did a search for the first three person/publication combos on the "official archived page" ("Timothy Handler" +"London Times"; "Helene Marceau" +"Parisian Daily"; and "Erick Griffin" +"Toronto Star"). Zero ghits all around. Deor (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N -- I've sought references for this film through Google and Access World News, but I was not able to find any valid mention whatsoever about the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Clear failure of WP:MOVIE. Even without the excellent analysis provided by Jayron32 above, the external links are completely non-credible. Doctorfluffy (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. After looking over things again. I change my view and think that this should be deleted. While I'm sure that the film actually exists, any film that is this much work to prove as 'real' clearly doesn't want to be 'found' :P. Let's just delete it until it gets a commercial release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YuleT (talk • contribs) 03:59, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phillip Palethorpe

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

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield ^«T•C» 19:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 19:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Delete. The player has played at least a season in a League Two top tier amateur football club, a British professional league, therefore meets WP:BIO. If you intend to contest the notability of players from this team, you will need to include around twenty more articles in this AfD. Redfarmer (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - both the article and Soccerbase state that he has yet to make an appearance for Chester City. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The article does not currently state that he has not played in a game; it merely says he was benched for "many" games. In fact, if you look at the table near the bottom of the article, it states that he has made a total of five appearances while he has been on loan to Tamworth F.C. this season, meaning he has played in a professional top tier amateur (National League System) game. The Soccerbase data you quoted was only for Chester City. Redfarmer (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Indeed. As you've stated yourself, Tamworth do not play in a fully professional league, so Palethorpe does not satisfy WP:BIO by having played for them. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
        • To quote WP:BIO:

Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them).

The article already quotes a secondary source from BBC Sports. A quick Google search finds plenty of secondary sources. I keep my vote: strong keep. Redfarmer (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO as he has not played in a fully-professional league. Although it is a top tier amatur league, it is a very long standing precendent that Conference players are not notable unless they have played at a higher level. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: If that's the case, then someone should propose WP:BIO be rewritten. It clearly states that if the player has played in a top level amateur league and there are secondary sources on them, they meet the notability requirements. It doesn't mention Conference plays. Redfarmer (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • No, it states "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." Football is a professional sport, not an amateur one. robwingfield ^«T•C» 21:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      • My apologies for my misreading. In that case, I am changing my vote to delete now, with no prejudice for recreation should he play some games when he returns to Chester City. Redfarmer (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP: BIO as he's never (to date) played in a fully professional league. Dancarney (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I agree he hasn't played fully professional football, fair enough, but he is currently second choice goalkeeper for Chester City and I'm sure he will be making an appearance for them soon. Deleting the page for a matter of days seems very pointless and a waste of hard work. Let's remember as well when he makes his appearance for The Seals, he will be classed then as a fully professional player - but isn't he already that while he's at Chester City? Jonesy702 (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - he may well be a professional footballer, and he may even be registered at a club in a fully professional league, but as I know you're aware, the bar set by WP:BIO is that the player must have made an appearance in a fully professional league, i.e. in England, Football League Two and above. If he makes such an appearance, then the page can be undeleted by an admin, but we should not crystal ball. robwingfield ^«T•C» 00:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • "I'm sure he will be making an appearance for them soon", yes WP:CRYSTAL much? :) пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh you must be right - I am looking into a crystal ball, there is no way he will ever play for Chester City because he is not first choice goalkeeper. How silly am I! Is he even a footballer? Jonesy702 (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - if he gets on the pitch for Chester, even as a sub, he gets a page. Until then he fails WP:BIO. BlueValour (talk) 20:37, 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: Speedily deleted per snowball clause. Page is not written in the style of an encyclopedia article; it is about a non-notable phrase (I maintain that it is not really a neologism - rather, a set of two random words that sometimes happen to be used together); page may well serve as spam for a set of personal websites; creator had attempted to influence this discussion/vote using sockpuppet accounts. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CatharticLament

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

Non notable neoglism. No reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary- article also seems to contain original research. Prod was removed by author without comment. J Milburn (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per nom as non-notable neologism and OR. Only reference to someone having used that phrase on page is to blog entitled catharticlament.com: the most recent of its comments have to do with the problems with dating strippers, the music in stripclubs, and something about Walmart. It's not exactly a reliable source. RJC ^Talk 19:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Leave it Why delete a page with interesting ideas? Sure it references some website used to complain about dating strippers, but there are lots of other sites on wikipedia that are just as silly. Maddox who is totally rude and disrespectful in nature to women on his website has a wiki entry. I think this page is fine and should be included. The page isn't really an add for anything. It is an explanation of a term or idea. Wumpilicious--Wumpilicious (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Note comments on article talk page. J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Kannie | talk 19:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT#DICT. I can't find any secondary sources on this term that would make me think it could possibly be expanded beyond its current state. Redfarmer (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Phrase used elsewhere The phrase 'cathartic lament' has been used elsewhere. Page 13 of the book "In the Soviet House of Culture: A Century of Perestroikas" By Bruce Grant [6] Evilsboitoy --Evilsboitoy (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Let it be A few of you have stated that Wiki is not a dictionary, but several terms are defined online at Wikipedia. So, to use that alone as a reason isn't fair. The person who created this is trying to create a new term or idea from something that has been around for ages. I say let it go, what's the big deal. I don't see where it gives attention to any one thing, other than it's idea of a new movement being cathartic lament. Degradedfaces--Degradedfaces (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Phrase has been used elswehere Another example of the phrase 'cathartic lament' being used elsewhere. [7] This work pays homage to the work of John Porter Houston, who wrote extensively on style, rhetoric, and narrative and poetic techniques in Western European literature. The book says a cathartic lament leads to opposition between consolation and lament in Virgil's Fifth Eclogue. The two words together create a new type of lamenting. A public release of emotion which creates relief by suspending progression of anger or saddness. Evilsboitoy
• Phrase used in music review This is London UK uses the term in a music review to describe a song about a bad relationship. "Cato as a Pun combines a cathartic lament about a dismal relationship with a satisfyingly tight fusion of synth pop and minimal early Sixties rock." See for yourself at [8]. My point in all this is that cathartic laments are very popular, seen everywhere, I this post does is describe and provide examples of and history of th words themselves which help create this new movement. Evilsboitoy--Evilsboitoy (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. It might be easily missed that several of the above statements are made by the same person (the page's creator). The other person in favor of keeping the phrase suggests we ignore the policy on neologisms. RJC ^Talk 02:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Yes, I created this and I posted proof of the term used elsewhere because the message on my user page states that I could site proof of why I think it should be kept. So, it isn't some big secret that I created this and posted proof of the term used in other places when someone else said they searched to find the term elsewhere and couldn't. Also, it is more a movement than a new word or coined phrase because those words already exist in our language. Evilsboitoy--Evilsboitoy (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I am glad to see this idea listed in Wikipedia. Although it does give reference to two different, and often rude websites, it also discusses the religious history of the words. Perhaps the two words together do work to define a movement with the society in which we live.Wumpilicious--Wumpilicious (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete a marginally coherent essay riddled with POV and OR proposing a neologism without any notability as a phrase. May be promotion for a blog, to boot. --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom: clearly WP:NOR and WP:NEO that fails notability. Mh29255 (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Users Wumpilicious ^contribs and Degradedfaces ^contribs have never contributed to Wikipedia, except for this debate. They also sign their name in precisely the same manner as Evilsboitoy ^contribs. These are the only accounts that have opposed deleting the article. This looks very much like a violation of WP:Sockpuppet. RJC ^Talk 08:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Update; I've begun a page on this Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Evilsboitoy. RJC ^Talk 08:51, 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 keep. Appears to pass WP:CORP. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ECO Canada

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

Organization fails WP:CORP and is not notable. Delete GreenJoe (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: WP:CORP says "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale." This is a Canadian national organization sponsored by the Canadian Government. There seem to be ample reliable sources.--agr (talk)
• Keep. Plenty of press coverage http://www.eco.ca/portal/mediaroom.aspx?display=101 for this government organization. Pburka (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep:ECO has more than 100,000 registered members and has provided funding for several thousand young recent graduates looking to launch their environmental careers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.132.56 (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC) — 64.56.132.56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep:This organization has some great information about enviornmental careers and resources to get you started! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.78.127.134 (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 03:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 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 withdrawn. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guk Fung

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

This article is biased, unreferenced and no information has been given on its notability. Cenarium (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable actor. I've cleaned up the POV and referencing problems. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. IMDB shows him in over 250(!) movies between 1959 and 2007. There are porn stars with fewer credits! Pburka (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm happy, when I'll have over 250 publications, I'll be notable enough to have my own article on Wikipedia ! Cenarium (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Withdrawing nomination notability established, I was not familiar with the policy of Wikipedia at the time -- Cenarium (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 03:57, 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 03:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inamul Haque

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

This article is an autobiography of an apparently unpublished researcher. However, speedy deletion of the article per CSD A7 is contested, and the issue is not sufficiently clear as to merit forcing the speedy deletion request back onto the article. John254 18:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable independent sources are produced to show notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not able to find reliable sources to establish notability - if they exist, they need to be in the article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete not verified enough; need sources -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - and use title as redirect to Enamul Haque. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The nominator's claim that he's unpublished seems to be false, according to a Google scholar search. But it takes a big splash to achieve notability for postdoctoral-level research and I'm not seeing it here. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Crusio (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete i find 4 papers in pub med, but Web of Science shows the most cited has been cited only 7 times. Not yet notable. There are several other Indian chemists of the name, but they work in somewhat different areas.DGG (talk) 01:45, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LQTM

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

Totally non-notable. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. While an article about internet slang might be suitable articles for every single abbreviation are not. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#DICT. (Note: I prodded this article; tag was removed by the article's creator.) Deor (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is just the expansion of an Internet laughter slang initialism, that belongs at LQTM if it can be properly attested. So redirect it to Quantum Turing machine, where a subject known as an LQTM is discussed. Uncle G (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 03:48, 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 keep. Nominator withdrew and there were no other opposing opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] M S Khan

M S Khan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced vanity article on non-notable subject. Though a few grand claims are made, none is substantiated and there is no evidence that any will ever be substantiated. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep- According to this ref+ (http://www.balid.org/mskl.html#note01 and its 13th paragraph), he's the father of Library and Information Science in Bangladesh and he also founded Library Science Descipline in Dhaka University. Furthermore, he received prestigious Swadhinata Padak (end of 11th paragraph). More information about Swadhinata Padak can be found here. The article needs to be complete rewrite.--NAHID 19:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —Travis^talk 19:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Father of Library and Information Science in Bangladesh? Is there any other source apart from the BALID reference that makes that lofty claim? The BALID site itself looks very much like a vanity site already (may even be a self published source), and it is certainly not "Independent of the subject" (WP:NOTE). The Swadhinota Padak google search, funnily, shows a complain about the award that it is being handed out to not-deserving parties as the second hit. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: Reference for the Swadhinota Padak (Independence Award) is also available here. Another "mention" of the significance of the contribution of the subject is seen here (read first 2 sentences). No matter how "criticized" the Swadhinota Padak is - it is still the highest honor given by a sovereign country (Bangladesh) and hence makes the receipient notable. To assume the website of an institution (BALID) which was established in 1986 as a self-published source of a person who died in 1978 is rather naive. Arman ^(Talk) 03:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

BALID is an institution? Sawdhinota Padak the highest honor in Bangladesh? The first rather seems like a club, and the second one of a myriad government awards in Bangladesh that begin big and die in whispers. The Daily Star link seems to mention the subject only in the passing. Talking of naiveté, iI am under the impression that self published sources may also include sources created by the editor who wrote the article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For reference on Sawdhinota Padak (Independence Award) being the highest honor given by Government of Bangladesh please consult Banglapedia. It is still not clear, exactly what makes BALID a self published source, "NOT independent of subject" etc. Arman ^(Talk) 09:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The Banglapedia link (which is dated anyways) didn't verify. Speaking of clarity, I am under the impression that BALID is a not-professional group (the members may be professionals, but the group isn't) of not-verified authenticity, and the subject apparently was a big-shot of the group. That makes it "NOT independent of the subject", i.e. not third-party (you could probably ignore that if it was a strongly reliable source). "Self published source" is a suspicion, not a confirmation (no need to go too hung-up on that). It just looks like that one or more of the people who created that page has created the article (WP:COI), and that's how it may be a self published source. Do you require any more clarifications? And, oh! Can't locate a source, apart from BALID, that says the subject was a recipient of Sawdhinota Padak. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Banglapedia link didn't verify what? It describes Independance award as the highest state award introduced by the Government of Bangladesh in 1977 in memory of the valiant martyrs in the War of Liberation. - what else are we trying to verify here? I earlier provided a link from The Daily Star confirming the Independence Day award of M S Khan. In case that was not clear, it is again here. Last but not least, the subject cannot be a "Big-shot" of BALID because he died before this Institution/club/group was formed. Arman ^(Talk) 11:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Independance award? You mean the Independence Day Award? Sorry, I missed, as I was looking for the Sawdhinota Padak. But, I am sure these two are the same. Look, BALID (an already barely notable organization) runs a trust in the name of the subject (check), and in no way is acceptable as an independent reliable source (as opposed to "not independent of the subject"). The subject may have died centuries before the organization was formed, but that doesn't change Wikipedia policies. Those little holes you are poking in my comments are not changing that fact either. Asserting notability on that the basis of that cite alone looks really far fetched. Especially when the subject's claim to fame is Father of Library and Information Science in Bangladesh. Such a grand claim must have at least a bit more substance. Otherwise the subject becomes "a recipient of the Independence Day Award (or should it be Independence Award?) for contribution in the area of education, especially in making libraries." There ends the story. Looks like prefect material for a "List of Independence Day Award recipients" article, not an independent one. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The subject is notable and deserves an article on wikipedia, for the following reasons:

1) Example of coverage from Independent Secondary sources: [9], [10],

2) The subject won Independence Day Award by Bangladesh Government (The highest award in Bangladesh) in 2004.

3) The subject is frequently quoted in scholarly literrature on Library and Information science in Bangladesh. UNESCO database returns 2 results [11], "LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE LITERATURE IN BANGLADESH: A BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY; Khan, M.S.I, et al.; Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, Vol.3, no.2, December 1998: 11-34" lists 12 articles [sl# 182-193] [12].

4) The subject was the first President of Library Association of Bangladesh, and is regarded as the "The father of Library and Information Science in Bangladesh" by Bangladesh Association of Librarians, Information Scientists and Documentalists i.e. BALID. Arman ^(Talk) 04:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note Two different editors have removed the AfD tag from this article today. I have restored the tag. --Crusio (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep awards, award established in his name, deanship of major school, national offices--this is notabiity! The language needs to be turned down, but that's a minor editing consideration. DGG (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Changed position to Keep and nomination withdrawn in context of the new information and sources. Nice work. Cheers everyone. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:40, 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 G7 by Eliz81. Non-admin closure. Tevildo (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seen reading

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

A blog about what people are reading on public transport and fantasies arising therefrom. Has received some media attention but seems too trivial for this encyclopedia. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - Per General Criteria 7, the author has blanked the page [13]. [[Guest9999 (talk) 18:18, 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 keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of terms of endearment

List of terms of endearment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article was created as a content fork from terms of endearment. Despite the good intentions, it's becoming a dumping ground for unsourced additions. I could just remove 90% of the terms as unreferenced and seldom used, but AFD seems like a better place to have this discussion. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, sweet! GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No reason given. The Transhumanist (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, baby! LOL! Given the stereotype of the typical Wikipedia fanatic as a "nerdy boy", this doesn't help change that image. I'm pretty sure that guys won't need to consult this before they go out on a date. Mandsford (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Image isn't a valid reason - look up all the articles Wikipedia has on BDSM. That it's not a date resource isn't a valid reason either. The Transhumanist (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Easily improved as I have just demonstrated by adding an entry with a source. See WP:PROBLEM. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• I thought I invented Honeybunny! Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Honeybunny is a good one. I showed the article to my girlfriend (a good test) and she spotted this one and said it was a song. Me, I was thinking of Pulp Fiction... Colonel Warden (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't think what information this page is trying to convey, or what someone might be looking up that would lead them to this page (other than using it as a thesaurus, which wikipedia is not). The problem is not sourcing that these words might be used as terms of endearment (though I doubt that the OED has an entry for honeyloverton or cuteson), but that even sourced the article would be a dictionary. Sorry, my wookie. RJC ^Talk 19:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Keep. I am persuaded by jakarr's reason for why the page should exist: better an unimportant page be a magnate for those kinds of changes than force editors to fight a never-ending and vigilant struggle to maintain the integrity of a useful article, I think. RJC ^Talk 23:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be merged back into Terms of endearment as it is currently lacking in prose content and so is too dry by itself. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Examples. The article gives very few examples. This list does a much better job, and is useful as a writing resource. Besides, if it determined to be a dictionary entry, then it should be transwikied rather than deleted - deleting it wastes the effort that went into developing it. The Transhumanist (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and source...spread the love around. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm sorry my little snickerdoodle, but I'm afraid you and I are just not right for each other. Please don't hold this against me, my little snugglepuffin. I'm sure there are plenty of other wikis out there who will be better to you than I ever was. Farewell, sillybritches. (P.S. How big a nerd do you have to be to call your girlfriend a "Wookie"?) --Hnsampat (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  I think it's more likely that it's a term of endearment from a girl to a big hairy boyfriend... but it could happen, I guess. Generally, terms of endearment HAVE to be silly, or they wouldn't be cute. Mandsford (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - First, it's not a content fork, it's an expansion of the article and complements it well. Second, it's not simply a dictionary entry, because some of the entries are blue-linked, which makes it a navigation resource. Third, "Dumping ground of unsourced additions" is not a valid reason for deleting - this describes Wikipedia as a whole very well. Ninety-five percent of Wikipedia is unsourced, and the solution is to source it, NOT DELETE IT. If we deleted 95% of Wikipedia, it would be ruined. The nom said "I could just remove 90% of the terms as unreferenced, but AFD seems like a better place to" [get rid of it] - now you know how to use policy to delete almost anything you want in two easy lessons. There isn't much difference between that and vandalism. WP:VER applies to most of Wikipedia, and can be used as an excuse to delete any of that -- therefore, I'd like to see more than this standard excuse -- how does this list differ from pages we should keep? The list has some good examples of terms of endearment, so I think we should keep it around so that someone can source it eventually (either as a stand-alone list or merged back into the article), and in the meantime, the dubious entries could be moved to the talk page pending finding sources for them. The Transhumanist 02:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  Sourcing will be a tall order... where do you trace the origin of someone calling another person "googleybear"? For anyone who wants to give it a try, start with The Book of Lists #2 by Irving Wallace, et al., which actually had something about pet names that famous people had for each other. I suppose that if we have lists of four-letter words, we can have lists of cute names too. It seems more like a category on Pyramid or Family Feud, however. Mandsford (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  I'll take that challenge. Here are some good examples of usage for "googly bear". The first is an amusing example of it being used as political campaigning jargon (the opposite of mud-slinging). Google news Colonel Warden (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - The only reason I created this article was to move the long list of examples from Term of endearment. My thought was that if people had another place to add terms like "snugglepuffin", they wouldn't in that article. The original article has its own problems, so any small improvement seemed to be a good thing. —jakarr 21:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - This list has been contributed to by many people, and does represent both widely used terms of endearment and more local/personal variants. It captures the essence of Wikipedia by providing readers with information that is relevant, and yet would not be captured in a print encyclopedia. Keep! --Davinox (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Has good potential, and as per Jakarr, clears up Terms of endearment. --Patar knight (talk) 23:36, 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, as the consensus is leaning towards the keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vanessa Kensington

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

This article establishes no notability (WP:FICTION) through reliable sourcing (WP:RS) and as such is just an in-universe plot repetition (WP:WAF) that is also duplicative of the plot section in the first Austin Powers movie article and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery. The subject of the article in question is a major character in the movie, so a redirect seems obvious. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep this character appears in a major role, and so it justifies an article by itself. The minor characters hould be merged, notthe major ones. DGG (talk)

No, it doesn't. Reliable sourcing of the content in the article justifying its notability does. The article is empty of anything but plot repetition, which is means that this doesn't have any encyclopedic content, such as analysis or relevance to the real world. As every other fiction article has to comply with this, and many users work tirelessly to find, add, and improve articles with this material, it is required here too. And if there is none to be found, it should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides, have you actually read the debate at WP:FICTION? If anything, the debate will end with the restoration of the existing requirements (as there is no consensus on basically anything) and an end to this fan boy war on our encyclopedic criteria. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this Article be 'Pre-emptivly' deleted in accordance with what you believe the debate at WP:FICTION will result in ? Notability is proven by citations, but citations are not the only measure of notability. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Vanessa Kensington plays a major role in a film franchise that made $670 million in sales. I can agree that the article is lacking in content and only repeats info stated elsewhere, but it is definitely notable enough to exist. The article needs rewriting, expansion and sourcing; not deletion. Hymyly^T@C 16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, notability is not inherited, so just because a character is in a big notable movie doesn't necessarily make them notable.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see what content this article has that couldn't be included here... Also, as Judgesurreal notes, just because the movie did well doesn't mean that all the characters are automatically notable. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 00:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As mentioned by Master of Puppets, there are better places for this - we don't need articles for every character in every film, there is nothing that could be in this article that wouldn't be better in the articles about the film franchise or characters. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana^talk 17:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Added a cite. There are several more on Google Scholar, let alone Google News. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Sources establishing notability have been shown to either exist or likely exist. All other problems are issues for cleanup. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 03:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Per the outcome of the related Felicity Shagwell debate, it's clear there is no big problem with this as a topic, although the article is not necessarily written appropriately at the moment. This is a major character. We could redirect back to one of the movie articles, but ultimately it makes sense to have the spin-off article so it's better to let it develop. Mangojuice^talk 07:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect or delete No notability established, just retelling the plot. The one source given seems to be in-universe as well. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Mango Juice, pretty correct Cocoaguy ここがいい_contribs^talk Review Me! 23:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• comment At the moment it unfortunately seems that there will be no compromise possible at WP:FICTION, and NOT PLOT doesnt apply to characters, so if it looks like there will be sources it meets the general notability criterion. there is an academic source already, and there is probably a discussion in the various reviews. I urge those interested in this topic to help resolve this more general disagreement. We dont all have to agree on something to be policy, just agree that we are all able to live with it. DGG (talk) 18:07, 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 and redirect to Christina Aguilera. I'll protect the redirects to prevent recreation. KrakatoaKatie 03:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Max Liron Bratman

Max Liron Bratman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The subject has only been alive for less than a week, as he is Christina Aguilera's newborn son. Fails notability, as it is not inherited from the parent. w^{L<speak·check>} 16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Being the child of celebrities does not necessarily make him one. Has not even been alive long enough to do something notable. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 17:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and then redirect to Christina Aguilera. There have been several precedents in AfD's involving the infant children of celebrities, and substantially all of them have indicated that the infant should not have a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This child is of no notability. Needs to be merged with his mother. Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Completely non-notable. Ckessler (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete but please move the info to Christina's entry. There is information here that is NOT listed on her wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trojan18 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete This is stupid. You shouldn't be creating Wikipedia articles for babies. End of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.91.55 (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Not only per precedent, but mostly per the fact that besides stories concerning his birth (making the birth, & not him, the star), he has not been "the subject of published secondary source material", thus, fails WP:BIO. нмŵוτнτ 03:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Christina_Aguilera#Motherhood. Otherwise the article will continue to be recreated. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 03:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge / redirect to Christina_Aguilera#Motherhood -- he belongs with his mother. --Lockley (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Per above Phoenix1304 (talk) 17:10, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stan Polley

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

Wholly non-notable outside of some mismanagement and some legal issues. The article is entirely unsourced. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There are articles on Wiki that refer to artists or artist managers who have had less effect within the music business. Polley managed many more artists than are listed in the article and they may be included to validate his effect. Sourcing can be corrected as well.-- ZincOrbie (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: The following was posted on 3 April, 2006 regarding sourcing and discussions of notability/relevance as far back as 30 January, 2006. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. Sourcing isn't exactly my favorite thing to do. If the consensus is to delete the article I think it would be a shame, but also a relief as I can get past the vandal who has been haunting the article for the past several months.-- ZincOrbie (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, or merge. The article clearly asserts notability. It might not be a bad idea to start afresh it with, however, and using inline citations, but if the question is "Should Wikipedia have an article or section on this person?" I think the answer is almost certainly "yes". --kingboyk (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Badfinger, which already covers the lawsuit adequately. Other than the single book Without You: The Tragic Story of Badfinger, I can find no in-depth coverage of Polley's career, and this article gives the controversy WP:NPOV#Undue weight. We have no independent sources which could help us judge whether the accusations are legitimate or whether Polley had any legitimacy as a promoter other than this one case. This is in every way a WP:COATRACK and if a coatrack is hte only article possible we must reconsider notability. --Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - featured on VH1, for one. // Gargaj (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep; work done for Badfinger plus verifiable involvement in newsworthy bribery incident and later criminal case amount to notability. --MCB (talk) 06:55, 20 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 indicated in the discussion, this is a non-notable biography. However, the crime itself might be something worthy of a Wikipedia article. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua Komisarjevsky

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

WP:BLP1E. subject is a suspect in a criminal investigation, whose 15 minutes of fame are over. if he's still known in a few years, which I doubt, we can recreate. let's not reward stupid murderers with notability. -- Y not? 16:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep but prefer merge to the (not yet created) article about the crime. A reference states that the crime of which he is accused is the most heinous in the history of the state. Accordingly, the notable crime should probably have an article, especially if it had any lasting effect on society. The crime has received coverage since the middle of last year, and was reported worldwide per Google News archive [14]. CNN[15] said the crime prompted the "Connecticut board of pardons and paroles to re-examine its policies;" another story [16] said the crime caused state lawmakers "to ponder reforms," and to hold hearings about the murders, and the crime led people in the town to rush out and purchase guns and security systems [17] all of which which are steps in the direction of societal effects. It seems not to be in accord with past practice to have only an article on the accused and no article on the crime. If there were an article on the crime, I would advocate merging this into it. Edison (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• If anything should be kept it should be renamed something like July 23, 2007 Connecticut home invasion. But Joshua Komisarjevsky is unnotable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. As I read WP:BIO, committing one gruesome murder does not merit inclusion in WP unless the case and person develop into something particularly notable in popular culture or in legal studies. I agree, if people outside of Conn. are still talking about this in a few years, we can undelete and expand. For now and the foreseeable future, it doesn't belong here. y'amer'can (wtf?) 20:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This crime was deemed the number one news story in CT in 2007 by the Associated Press. The crime led to an unprecendented review of the CT criminal justice system; including a special session of the CT state legislature and Governor M. Jodi Rell banning paroles. The crime was widely reported in worldwide media and the New York Times website still includes a section entitled "Petit Family News". Just last week the Today Show did a segment on how the community of Cheshire is healing from the tragedy. Prominent CT attorneys have deemed this crime the most heinous in CT history, outdoing the awful murder of Martha Moxley or the various murders committed by Michael Ross. I think those who label this "one gruesome murder" have no idea whatsoever the impact this crime has had on the entire state of Connecticut —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.141.78 (talk • contribs)
  • Nice crime. Still an NN biography. -- Y not be working? 16:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - JK is already mentioned in his grandfather's article: Theodore Komisarjevsky. -- Y not be working? 21:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Commnent- 1.4 MILLION Yahoo hits = NN????? "1 - 10 of about 1,400,000 for cheshire home invasion (About this page) - 0.15 sec."http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu41JDpBHH1UAdgNXNyoA?p=cheshire+home+invasion&y=Search&fr=yfp-t-501&ei=UTF-8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.141.78 (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Commnent-- documentation as to impact "The Cheshire home invasion - allegedly committed by two paroled burglars - was unanimously voted the top story of the year by state editors, news directors and staff of The Associated Press". [[18]]

Also "The metaphor of light as a symbol of hope was embraced fully by a community that was profoundly rattled by what has been called the most heinous crime in state history"[[19]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.141.78 (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. A terrible, horrifying crime and tragedy. Not, however, a biography. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no place here for these little archives of horrific crimes, for either the perp or the victims. Non-notable biography. Sensational news events are not automatically notable and no argument here has proved this one is. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Rename and/or merge into an article on the crime itself. Per WP:BIO1E, we shouldn't pretend that an account of a particular newsworthy incident is a "biography" of one of the participants. The event is noteworthy; the rest of the perpetrator's life really isn't. *** Crotalus *** 00:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment "Sensational news events are not automatically notable". So when are the Manson murders, Son of Sam, and Ted Bundy going to be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.141.78 (talk) 05:33, 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, as the deletion arguments were vague and unexplained. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Element Yachts

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

Nominated for notability issues. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What sort of issues? SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 01:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep The company appears notable; it has a track record and produces notable products. --Stormbay (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. GJ (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as per Stormbay. Matt Deres (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The company may produce some very fine boats, but there is no assertion that it is an industry leader; or that it has received any substantial news coverage; or that its boats are the fastest, lightest, or something-est in the world, etc. Therefore, fails WP:CORP. RJC ^Talk 19:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment A company need not be an industry leader or hold a record of some kind in order to be sufficiently notable for inclusion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Water sports has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment It appears that the mother and grandmother companies produced notable products, but that the present company ... has some problems. For instance, their website subscription has expired. I've pulled some information together on the talk page about their Contour line of products. I would argue that if past notability can be demonstrated, present struggles should not prejudice the production of a proper article. My thinking from the searches I've made so far is that words on this company appear in the specialty press of yachting and trimaran racing and might not be as extensive as desired on-line. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • P.S. The reason why I'm not flexing the So-Fix-It muscle is that I am ignorant about boats and boating - the article should be edited by someone at least noddingly familiar with the field. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:43, 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. The AFD tag was removed twice, but the snowstorm had already taken place. KrakatoaKatie 03:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monique Rychtr

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:NOTE, WP:RS and WP:V. Only sources are myspace and a self-created freewebs profile, no significant coverage found by searches (see talk page). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Lack of sources means she fails WP:N and the Gsearches (from talk) suggest that she also fails WP:V. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. Goog returned 60+ results. 0 of them prove/support notability.True theory (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also, it's so horribly written, that, even if there was a valid source, I'd want the writer punished somehow. Branman515 (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

well dont just delete it because this article is helpful to a lot of people. I am currently using it because im doing a report about her for my styling class a FIDM. How about someone just re-write it.

Shoeaddict545 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.161.78 (talk) 02:48, 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. KrakatoaKatie 03:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SBNN

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

PROD removed by author, so here we are: This apparently web-based publication has no indication of notability and, because of its rather limited circulation, has little chance of gaining notability. The article includes no claims of notability, but speedy deletion was declined because the publication claims to be a magazine. According to the website, though, the first printed issue has yet to be published. —Travis^talk 15:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No reliable sources to establish notability. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The current website at www.sbnn.co.nr is our old one. It's going to be replaced tommorrow or later today with our new one, which will have SBNN for Download. Jordanrosserthomas (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't resolve the issues raised here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - no reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity article of zero significance. --AlisonW (talk) 21:47, 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 redirect to Cliff Compton. Ѕandahl 06:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Domino (wrestler)

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

This article has no references. Non-notable person. One external link, and it's broken. iMatthew 15:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 15:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - as usual. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cheers, LAX 16:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • AfD was incomplete. Added to log and tagged article. —Travis^talk 16:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Deuce 'n Domino, a tag team involving a different Domino. This one doesn't appear to be notable. Maxamegalon2000 19:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Cliff Compton, the notable wrestler who uses this ring name too (no offense to Max, I just think it's better to redirect to the individuals article instead of the tag team he is part of). TJ Spyke 19:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. I don't follow the wrestling much. --Maxamegalon2000 04:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect per TJ. Compton is notable, I would suggest Mark Benson is not. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 19:07, 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 speedy delete - under CSD A1. Rudget. 15:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CWF Heavyweight Champonship

CWF Heavyweight Champonship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Completely non-notable title from a promotion that is similarly non-notable. Not even primary sourcing, let alone secondary. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1. There's no context to tell us what the thing is. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. iMatthew 15:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Super Speedy Delete - Appears this article was just created for the purpose of Jamie Lee Stone, also delete per nom.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 15:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no context. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 15:20, 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 - lack of reliable sources (the three trivial mentions given in the discussion do not meet this standard), fails WP:BIO. - KrakatoaKatie 03:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Adams (Beekman Town Supervisor)

John Adams (Beekman Town Supervisor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability per WP:BIO, esp. footnote 6: "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." The article has been restored at deletion review, so it is not subect to speedy deletion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, as the position of town supervisor is analogous to that of a mayor. Mayors are usually notable per the general notability guideline, as there is invariably significant coverage of their activities in local newspapers. It appears that trialsanderrors may havenominated this article for deletion without first attempting to find acceptable source material. John254 15:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Not that it is my task to look for sources, but I found this as the only source on Google News, which is of course far from fulfilling the requirements at WP:N or WP:BIO. The rest of your argument is of course proof by assertion reasoning. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Many usable sources, especially local newspapers, are not available online. John254 15:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      • In other words, you got nothing. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Actually, I'm just attempting to show that the assertion that no additional coverage in reliable sources can easily be found is false. Consider the following three additional newspaper articles: [20] [21] [22]. While they don't constitute significant coverage by themselves, the presence of three additional articles online not identified by the nominator suggests that significant coverage could be found, though perhaps not in the 5 day time frame of an AFD discussion. John254 15:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
          • I make no such assertion, just the asertion per WP:BLP that the burden of proof lies on the editor who wants the article retained. Still delete after reviewing the new sources. We're not a directory of every minor office holder. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
            • The rule that "per WP:BLP... the burden of proof lies on the editor who wants the article retained" applies only to articles which are non-frivolously alleged to constitute WP:BLP violations. Since no WP:BLP violations have been asserted, the rule is inapplicable. John254 15:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
              • Crap and nonsense. The burden of proof lies with the editor who wants content included all the time. You still got nothing. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
              • A little more civility woulda' been nice there, but trialsanderrors is basically right. From WP:BLP (important parts italicized):

                Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles...

                and

                The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

                --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. A Google News search for "John Adams" Beekman gets a single result (same as above), which isn't about him and certainly doesn't qualify as "significant press coverage". --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Though I was able to come up with a few more sources that the man exists, I don't see how this can ever be expanded enough for an article. Perhaps a passing mention on the town's article, along with other elected officials. Being newsworthy for a small town paper doesn't equate in notability beyond the town's borders, and Mr Adams is barely newsworthy in his local press. Jacksinterweb (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete While this AfD is generating an interesting discussion on notability I do not believe that being a supervisor of a town of less than 12,000 people, and having no independent news coverage, comes close. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence that the subject is notable due to lack of coverage by secondary sources - "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". [[Guest9999 (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)]]
• Delete. I am inclusionist on mayors and have repeatedly stated a personal rule of thumb that running cities over 100,000 rates some notability. This falls far short of my generous standard, and farther short of WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 06:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per greek chorus. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:24, 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 keep. --MCB (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FP3 player

FP3 player (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

...Is it worth having an article on this? This is how it looked when I tagged it for speedy deletion [23]. Then it went to this. Now, a week later, despite stub tags being added, it's still arguably non-notable.
This is my first time doing this [nominating an AfD] - make it special. ^Dlae│_here 14:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Fixed malformed nomination (please use the {{afd2}} template). Find sources: FP3 player — news, books, scholar; there's one article from the New York Times [24]. Along with the CNet review, it might squeak by WP:N, though I'm not too sure. cab (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep A CNET review and NY Times article are enough for me, especially since it comes from such a major toy company. — brighterorange (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I improved the article a bit. — brighterorange (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, even with the item being mentioned once in the NY Times, it doesn't pass WP:N in my opinion. Poeloq (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep I'm seeing several news stories on this[25]; in addition to the ones mentioned above, there's the Newsweek piece, Arab News, International Herald Tribune, and others. --Fabrictramp (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • IHT one seems to be a reprint of the NYT; both start out "Shaped like a hockey puck and just about as indestructible, the Kid-Tough FP3 Player from Fisher-Price puts music and stories at children's fingertips". And both that and the Arab News report are pretty short; the Newsweek one is even shorter, just 3 lines in a 95-item list. cab (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - google news sites, such as New York Times, Arab News, and others establish that this passes WP:CORP. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:15, 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. -- Longhair\^talk 19:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fruma Goldman

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

An anon placed an AfD tag, but was presumably unable to create the discussion page. The AfD tag was removed, and another editor placed a speedy deletion tag, which I contested as the article does seem to assert notability. However, it is unreferenced, possibly a hoax, a BLP, and Google seems to have no mention of this person apart from a blog which was being used as a reference. Canley (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Being unreferenced for this long is a strong suggestion that reliable sources don't exist. A Gsearch for "Fruma Goldman" turned up nothing useful, and a Google News search for the same was empty. Fails WP:V. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for verifiability. Smells like a hoax. -- Y not? 16:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Completely unsourced biography with severe WP:BLP problems if the subject is a real person. This article was created by an anonymous user (back when that was still allowed) who had no other contributions except to this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Daughter of a billionaire mining magnate rabbi (who also doesn't appear in google)? Come on. RJC ^Talk 19:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete possible hoax -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as a BLP violation, if nothing else. As a comment, I don't think that Google searches are suitable for Africa-related articles given the limited internet infrastructure in most countries, which includes newspapers in the more developed nations such as South Africa not necessarily having archives which are available online. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Unfortunatly the article was around for two years. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, if it's not a BLP violation, then its... well, it's a BLP violation, innit? Lankiveil (talk) 11:26, 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 as hoax. Rudget. 14:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Schwarky-talkie

Schwarky-talkie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I can't find any evidence that this actually exists and think it likely that this is a rather puerile hoax. However, I can't be sure so I am listing it here. Mattinbgn\^talk 12:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete looks like a hoax. Article claims it's sold by Dick Smith Electronics and Tandy, but neither of their websites knows about it. JohnCD (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete looks like a hoax to me as well. I can't find anything except wiki mirrors. Being an Aussie you would think I'd have heard about these if fair dinkum? Looks like a pork pie though. Sting_au Talk 12:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete' – Could find no information. Shoessss |  Chat  12:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 12:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete – codswallop --Melburnian (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete stupid hoax. I'd also suggest adding it to WP:DAFT Doc Strange (talk) 14:20, 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. Ѕandahl 06:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rukas

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

Non-notable musician. Article was deleted via AfD but has been "substantially rewritten", according to the admin who declined to speedy it. (Article created and most content added by StreetHopCom account (Street Hop being Rukas' community radio show and website) and IPs from the same area.) Still fails WP:MUSIC. Precious Roy (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete – Not quite there yet. MySpace does not count Shoessss |  Chat  12:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. No more notable than 1 million other bands/rappers, etc., all of which can not be merited an entry. -RiverHockey (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as not meeting WP:MUSIC. Bondegezou (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Badly written, no refs, and very thin. --andreasegde (talk) 14:22, 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. Some (i.e. or 2) of the notable, major claims could be merged into Fyodor Dostoevsky if they're cited and agreed upon. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural depictions of Fyodor Dostoevsky

Cultural depictions of Fyodor Dostoevsky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

More unreferenced original research. A list of assertions that this fictional work or that was "inspired" by Dostoevsky, with no citations to back up any of this. If citations can be found for one or two of the most important things (the Alfred Hitchcock film, for instance) then maybe those could be added to the main biography page. The article itself should just be deleted, since it provides nothing of any encyclopedic value. *** Crotalus *** 11:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Wikipedia's "In popular culture" category articles constitutes the world's single most useful Popular Culture Encyclopedia and every year it gets better. Help that effort to make it an even better pop culture encyclopedia within the vast Wikipedia encyclopedia that contains all other encyclopedias. Don't try to destroy it. I suppose if you were editing Wikipedia in 2003, you would have put up the whole encyclopedia for deletion because at that time no article on Wikipedia was adequately sourced by today's standards. We don't delete an article just because it is not yet perfect. Further, there is no reason to believe citations can not be found for the article's claims. Nor is there a reason to believe that in coming years this article could not be improved so that it is not merely a list. Improve, don't delete. http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&hs=7mg&q=%22The+Master+of+Petersburg%22+Dostoevsky+&btnG=Search can be used to find a cite for the first claim. Start there. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete – Have to agree with *** Crotalus *** . WP:OR Shoessss |  Chat  13:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Of the items in this list, only the first and the last could reasonably be interpreted as depictions of Dostoevski. There's a difference between a reference to one or another of D's works and a depiction of the guy himself. The references to the novels can be (and probably are; I haven't checked) included in the novels' articles if they're felt to be significant. Deor (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 15:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete spinoff article created because the maintainers of Fyodor Dostoevsky feel that an encyclopedia article about the Russian literary legend might not actually need references to "Family Guy". Although the writers of that show and "The Simpsons" are brilliant, that's not necessarily true of their fans. Mandsford (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and expand or merge this short article that demonstrates the influence of Dostoevsky on popular culture. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Fyodor Dostoevsky#Works and influence. Clearly the content of this article has little to no encylopedia value on it's own, however it would be much more illuminating to show Dostoevsky's lasting influence on literature/film/culture in general. I see no reason why this content can't be accommodated in that section. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to main article on Dostoyevksy if space permits. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Which content would that be? If Sir Winston Churchill was mentioned in an episode of The Flintstones, would that be a significant part of his legacy? Should an article about Les Miserables include a note about Phoebe mispronouncing the title on Friends? Mandsford (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does everyone have this mistaken idea that IPC sections are either "all or nothing"? Of the nine entries in this list, 6 clearly demonstrate Dostoyevsky's cultural influence, while 3 have perhaps questionable value. Don't kill the patient to cure the disease, just remove non-notable entries from the list. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the point is not to let the "disease" re-infect a patient who is recovering from nausea, which is the applicable analogy for the suggestion of a merger. This is the type of garbage that doesn't belong in a scholarly article about Fyodor Dostoevsky. I think that both the keep and delete votes are premised on the idea that this is stuff that one wants to keep separate from another article, hence the all-or-nothing view. Some people want to keep it to protect the original article's integrity; some want to delete it as something that they think isn't worth making an article out of. If you're changing your suggestion from "merge" to "keep", I can better understand the "improve rather than delete" argument. Mandsford (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is a lost cause from the get-go. However, the main Fyodor Dostoevsky article would benefit from some of the content in this article, as it demonstrates his influence in mordern media film/television/etc. That's why I still recommend trim and merge. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 12:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone will object if you want to do that type of improvement on the main article right now, particularly before what useful information there is disappears. I trust your discretion entirely on that one; I think we both have the same opinion concerning the scholarly value of the references to Family Guy and the like. Mandsford (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge Could be done easily. --andreasegde (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per NickPenguin. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as a trash-bin to prevent the main article being degraded by trivia. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC).

To expand on the remark above: Wikipedia contains a multitude of users whose interests are limited to the trivial aspects of popular culture. They do valuable work by chronicling the existence of popular music bands, TV shows and so forth but their contributions may not be appropriate for articles of greater importance, such as the one on Dostoevsky (I admit a POV here). My suggestion is that the article Cultural depictions of Fyodor Dostoevsky be retained to provide an outlet for those people in this category who are intent on saying their own two cents worth. I fear this may sound supercilious but the issue is a real problem in the culture of Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:56, 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. WjBscribe 08:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relatives of John Lennon

(View AfD)

Julia Lennon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Mimi Smith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I apologize in advance for nominating two quality-rated articles. They have obviously been around for quite some time and have had a lot of work put into them, but I nevertheless don't think that either meets the notability criteria.

Julia Lennon and Mimi Smtih have no notability of their own. Their sole reason for having articles here is their relationship to John Lennon, as mother and aunt, respectively. Julia was a mother and a homemaker; Mimi was a nurse and a secretary. Neither has, on her own, made any impact on the world. Considered independently of John Lennon (as they should be), these are the biographies of two absolutely ordinary people.

Both articles appear to have been pieced together entirely from snippets in works about John's life that happened to involve his mother or aunt. I don't see a single source that has Julia or Mimi as the primary subject, paper or internet, and that is the most basic criterion at WP:BIO.

"That a person has a relationship with a well-known person is not a reason for a standalone article." Julia Lennon and Mimi Smith are not a notable people in their own right and should not have articles any more than John Lennon's grandparents, distant cousins, childhood schoolmates, or bus drivers. Dylan (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, I appreciate where you're coming from, but from WP:BIO, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability," which in my opinion is what is happening here. I think you're going to be hard pressed to get consensus to delete either of these. Lankiveil (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC).
• Keep I agree with Lankveil, substantial referenced biographical coverage trumps the notion of related fame not being enough. --Canley (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep – Sorry to disagree and to honest understand why you nominated. However, there is a case for notability just given the fact that Julian Lennon is John Lennon’s mother, in the same way we have articles about Hitler’s mother and stepfather. And yes, I know, I could have used a better comparison, but it was the first name that popped into my head. Shoessss |  Chat  13:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oops! Typo there. "Julia" and "Julian" are both relatives, but Julia is the mother. Julian had some fame of his own as a singer, independent of his father. Mandsford (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I have read that this is not a paper encyclopedia; so allowing for subjects that would not be "notable" elsewhere, where print space is at a premium. Mimi Smith and Julia Lennon both had a great effect on Lennon's life, and he mentioned them in songs. I agree with Shoessss, and wonder just how many other articles there are about the relatives of famous persons. Plus: detailing every episode of The Simpsons and every football quarter-back comes into question. --andreasegde (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC) P.S., regarding citations, Julia Lennon has 66 and Mimi Smith has 71, and I think they are as notable as The Green (Dartmouth College), if you don't mind me saying so. :) --andreasegde (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment The argument that we should keep an article about a subject lacking notabililty because there are lots of other articles about not-very-notable subjects is not an effective one. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Each article should be judged on its own merits rather than allowing the presence of other poor articles to be used as a reason to drag the quality of the encyclopedia down with yet more poor articles. Edison (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment – And it was, if you feel not, than what constitutes notability? When an individual is referenced in numerous reliable and verifiable sources, though you may not agree with the source, how does is that not delineate notability? My suggestion would be rather than criticizing improve! It would be greatly appreciated. Shoessss |  Chat  Shoessss |  Chat  21:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep "John Lennon's grandparents, distant cousins, childhood schoolmates, or bus drivers" (from the nom) do not, should not, and will never have articles about them - nor is there a floodgate of such articles waiting to open. That's a straw man argument, and kind of silly to boot - Julia and Mimi were both very important to John personally and professionally - they are arguably the greatest female (or not) influences on him prior to Yoko Ono - and their articles give us insight into him that adds to our knowledge. Exactly what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. Indeed, Wikipedia is not paper, and we do not have the kinds of space constraints that Britannica does - but we try to keep the length of articles in somewhat manageable form, so we create sub-articles such as these so as to not overload people. If we had no such concerns, then these two women would likely each have a major section in John's article, as long as their separate articles or nearly so. That would be unmanageable, so they are forked off and people who want to learn more about these influential individuals can do so, while those who only want the overview get it in the main article. Just like every other complex Wikipedia article. I also object to the implicit denigration of "mother and aunt" as if that's prima facie not enough to make someone notable - is Freddie more notable because he's male? These are GA for reasons, and this nomination is way off base. I'd be happy to see this snowed, but I'll leave that to someone else, as I've edited some on Beatles articles. Tvoz |talk 18:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • First, that last line ending with "bus driver" was not the driving point of my argument but simply a closing illustration of why these subjects aren't notable. Second, I dislike your implication that this nomination is somehow sexist. I wrote that they were "mother and aunt" because that's literally all they were, in additional to "homemaker" and "nurse", as also noted. And yes, if someone's crowning achievement in life is being the sister of someone who gave birth to someone else, I do consider that prima facie evidence of non-notability. I considered, but decided against nominating Alfred Lennon because (1) there is a book about him specifically cited (Daddy come home : the true story of John Lennon and his father), and because he also achieved a (very low) level of publicity independently by releasing his own record and having it be the subject of several newspaper articles. He has been the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources and therefore meets WP:BIO, although not by a wide margin in my opinion. At any rate, I recognized that it was close enough to not waste anyone's time with the nomination. Dylan (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Smerge These individuals lack any notability other than being mentioned in accounts of John Lennon, so the basic facts about their influence on his life should be merged to his article. Being related to a notable person and being mentioned in stories about him does not create the degree of notability needed to satisfy WP:BIO. As for the merge making the Lennon article too long, some details in these articles should be omitted, such as that Mimi "did have a stainless-steel double-drainer kitchen sink installed in 1961 that she was very proud of." There is also the license plate number and later career accomplishments of the driver who struck and killed Julia. In other words, the encyclopedic material could be merged into the Lennon article without adding the total verbiage of the two related articles. In addition, there is duplication of genealogical information in the two articles. Edison (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep It is prepostrous to even suggest that such huge influences on Lennon both as a person and an artist are not noteable - prepostrous! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, I feel that (as you just pointed out), the point is their influence but not them. Their influence is only important in the context of John; it's the influence on him, so it should be discussed in his article. The minute details of Mimi's and Julia's lives are irrelevant. Dylan (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Irrelevant to what exactly? They're famous people and well documented; all the info in their articles should be relevant to them and encyclopedic - if it's not, the articles need to be trimmed. I'd sooner be reading about these people, who have genuinely influenced popular culture albeit indirectly, than a DJ on local radio or a bit part actor, both of whom the guidelines generally consider notable. --kingboyk (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Your comment presupposes their notability (They're famous people). Leaving aside for a moment whether or not they are notable enough to have an article, let's consider the grounds on which that notability is asserted. "Keep" and "Delete" recommenders alike seem to acknowledge that Mimi and Julia's notability is solely in their relationship to and influence of John Lennon -- that is, no one is claiming that their lives in and of themselves were notable (for achievements or other independent accomplishments; that if John were never born, we'd still have the article on them). The notable element is the relationship and influence given by these women, as separate from their actual lives. That's a very important distinction.
      • I agree that the influence and relationship is important and notable, and should absolutely be treated on Wikipedia. Subsequently, the question becomes where that information should be discussed. Most of the contributers at this discussion believe it warrants separate articles for the identity of those who gave that influence. However, it seems glaringly obvious to me that the place to discuss an influence on John Lennon and a relationship with John Lennon is at the article called John Lennon. The notability itself is only meaningful within the context of John. The John-Mimi relationship isn't important to the world because it affected or originated with Mimi; it's only important for its ultimate effect on John. John is the notable one, not her. It's the same reason why we don't have an article on the cherry tree George Washington cut down. The tree was important, but only in the context of George. We don't need to know about its species classification, what it looked like, and how old it was.
      • My point is that the kernel of notability we're debating does not lie within the actual biography of either woman. That's the reason why when you read either article, you simply come away with a profile of an ordinary person who could just as likely have been you or me -- a woman who led a normal life, had a childhood, adulthood, marriage and children, and who did nothing on her own of any note whatsoever. That nugget of notability is inherently part of John's life, not anyone else's.
      • As far as the actual content of either biography is concerned -- and this is a somewhat separate issue than whether the article should be deleted -- both are riddled with unimportant, extraneous details. The following examples are just a taste from a skimming of the first half of Julia Lennon:
        • Julia was known as being high-spirited and impulsive...
        • Alfred 'Freddie' Lennon—always called 'Alf' by his family—was always quick with a joke or a witty line...
        • Alf, who was dressed in a bowler hat and holding a cigarette holder...
        • She could tell a joke as bawdy as any man...
      • In a certain way, it's understandable that this level of petty detail is included because, as I've pointed out, these women aren't notable. We can't write about their great achievements and lasting contributions to humanity, because they have none. The article on William Shakespeare wastes little time discussing the kinds of jokes he told because there are more pressing and historically significant parts of his life to discuss, like his career as a playwright. In the case of the Lennons who don't have similar achievements, the only way to fill up a biography about them is to include the minutiae of their everyday existence, like what they wore, how their personalities were perceived by others, and how they plodded through life. The remarkable unremarkability of Mimi and Julia's lives is a testament to their lack of notability.Dylan (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
        • • As for petty details - Ron Paul proposed to his wife at a "park picnic" and Mitt Romney hates eggplant. These details are equally "petty", yet no one suggests they are in those articles because there's nothing else to say about the subjects. It's a style of biography writing - not always my favorite, I have to admit - but some think the inclusion of small details adds a humanizing dimension and helps us to get a clearer picture of the person in our minds. Details are not necessarily added merely to fill up space. So I don't agree with your assumption that petty details=nothing to say. As Kingboyk suggests, trimming and deletion are two different things. Tvoz |talk 09:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I understand your point, so we'll have to agree to disagree. To my mind your argument calls for a trimming of the articles not deletion. I appreciate that you see it differently; thank you for the civil dialogue. --kingboyk (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Fair enough. Thanks to you, too, for the same. Dylan (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• strong delete per nom. However great an influence on John Lennon they may have been, that is only a claim for discussing them in his article, not for devoting separate articles to each of them. People with just as strong an influence on far more important artists do not (and should not) get their own articles. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment Isn't this argument just the other side of OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Tvoz |talk 00:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment Hold on... "People with just as strong an influence on far more important artists"? Far more important? I am sure there are, but it's a strange line to use. --andreasegde (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep For a while now I've been feeling that availability of reliable sources (or lack thereof) ought to trump some invented scale of potential "notability" based on level of achievement. These people have been extensively documented in a wide range of publications, that in essence is "notability"; they are far more "notable" than people who qualify for an article because they had a top 40 hit in Luxembourg but about whom next to nothing has ever been written (WP:MUSIC). If that's not good enough, then I refer you to Vera, Chuck & Dave and others who have also illustrated the importance of these people. Wikipedia is not paper, and articles like this do the encyclopedia credit because we have the resources to write about them and paper enyclopedias do not. --kingboyk (talk) 00:49, 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 keep. I have been bold liberty as I believe this qualifies as a proper closure per WP:DPR#NAC. The delete arguments have mostly advocated a back-merge or talked about the lack of sources. The lack of sources can be fixed, and in fact I am going to remove any problematic entries (e.g., the Kirk Cobain one), and suggest people participating in this debate, especially ones calling for keep, make an effort to work on third party sources. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Illuminati in popular culture

Illuminati in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Detached trivia section consisting of basically every time the word "Illuminati" has been mentioned on a movie, TV show, or other work of modern fiction. There are no reliable third-party sources cited for any of these entries. *** Crotalus *** 11:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Many of these entries don't need references because there are blue links and the association is obvious, e.g. the Illuminatus trilogy. I myself am quite interested in this topic and frequently play the game. You just need to look at a dollar bill or see a movie like National Treasure to understand the pervasiveness of this amusing concept. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Wikipedia's "In popular culture" category articles constitutes the world's single most useful Popular Culture Encyclopedia and every year it gets better. Help that effort to make it an even better pop culture encyclopedia within the vast Wikipedia encyclopedia that contains all other encyclopedias. Don't try to destroy it. I suppose if you were editing Wikipedia in 2003, you would have put up the whole encyclopedia for deletion because at that time no article on Wikipedia was adequately sourced by today's standards. We don't delete an article just because it is not yet perfect. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, "There is an urban legend that Kurt Cobain was an enemy of the Illuminati, and they were the ones to kill him. People say you can hear messages about the Illuminati in the song Smells Like Teen Spirit when played backwards". Does more need to be said? 99% of this is unsubstantiated trivial rubbish. Lankiveil (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC).
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as failing reliable third-party sources. Every little trivia entry needs to have a footnote in a reference section at the end of the article if it is ever going to be anything like encyclopedic. Sting_au Talk 12:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

*Merge – Why not just merge into Illuminati under a subheading. Shoessss |  Chat  13:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's where the article started before it was spun off. Flip-flopping is not constructive. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep – Based on Colonel Warden (talk) articulations. Like the Colonel, I find the subject fascinating. This piece does offer a contribution in broadening the knowledge, be it Pop Culture, or actual fact. Well researched and referenced. By the way, thank you for pointing out the spin-off. Shoessss |  Chat  14:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Lack of sourcing is only a valid deletion reason if sourcing doesn't exist. I don't think this has been demonstrated in this case. Much of this content is plot summary, which doesn't require a secondary source anyway. The article has problems, but these are problems that need to be addressed by editing the article to provide real world context in addition to the plot summary it already contains. AfD isn't cleanup. Rray (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Though most ipc articles do tend to be "lists of every time ____ was mentioned", that's not the case here. Let's be fair. Mandsford (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep this well organized and notable article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Although I agree that some of this content may be subject to a reality check (and then removed), the Illuminati are the most widely known "secret" organization, and thus there has been a great deal of speculation/legend/atmopsphere around them. A list like this that documents their lasting impression on popular culture demonstrates their continued significance, regardless of wither they even exist or not. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I there are BS or rumor-mill examples, then remove them. Otherwise the Illuminati have been pervasive enough in popular culture - the subject of many books, films, and notable conspiracy theories - that an article of this nature is justified. It just needs to be vetted, is all. 23skidoo (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Make subheading of Illuminati page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveSims (talk • contribs) 07:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. notable topic. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful back in to the main Illuminati article. - fchd (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per its influence in books, TV, and games. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but it needs a drastic rewrite to discuss the actual topic and how it developed, etc... rather then just being a list.--Him and a dog 16:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and edit--the discussion at this afd is more illuminating fuller than in the article. DGG (talk) 01:50, 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 consensus. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] M. C. Escher in popular culture

M. C. Escher in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Virtually the entirety of this article is unreferenced original research. Most of the entries consist simply of constructs that various Wikipedia editors thought looked like something out of one of Escher's paintings. No reliable third-party sources are cited to substantiate these assertions. *** Crotalus *** 11:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I suppose that this is overflow from the Escher article. The article needs work but there is something to be said here, because Escher was so influential. I have an Escher tie myself and it is one of my favourites. The article doesn't even mention this yet. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem is that you can't simply assume that every depiction of an impossible object or similar geometry is related to M.C. Escher. That is original research. You need a reliable source specifically saying that it was Escher-inspired. *** Crotalus *** 11:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Wikipedia's "In popular culture" category articles constitutes the world's single most useful Popular Culture Encyclopedia and every year it gets better. Help that effort to make it an even better pop culture encyclopedia within the vast Wikipedia encyclopedia that contains all other encyclopedias. Don't try to destroy it. I suppose if you were editing Wikipedia in 2003, you would have put up the whole encyclopedia for deletion because at that time no article on Wikipedia was adequately sourced by today's standards. We don't delete an article just because it is not yet perfect. Further your assertion are incorrect. You appear not to even have read the article nor to have read its many external links. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The external links are to Youtube, IMDB, and blogs — none of which are reliable sources. *** Crotalus *** 13:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Like American Gothic, Escher's engraving of Relativity (M. C. Escher) (the one where people are climbing staircases at various angles) has become famous enough that it is parodied, referred to, and universally recognized. Mandsford (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep this well-organized and referenced article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep While some of these "inspired by Escher" claims may be subject to questioning, it's clear that the vast majority are actually references to Escher, since they use identical motifs. Also, in this case, they are also not "unreferenced", because they draw their information from the primary source. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Clearly notable, but better sources can be found. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - common sense says notable and references shouldn't bee too hard. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable and influential artist. As with the Illuminati article above, vet any unverifiable information or OR, and keep the rest. 23skidoo (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Fairly well sourced already.DGG (talk) 01:33, 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 and Merge to Chronicles of Narnia. Someone more knowledgeable than I can perform the merge if there is anything to merge. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lone Islands

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

This article is just plot repetition of various Narnia plot elements, and has no notability or referencing of its own. Its therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirect and Merge: No out-of-universe notability.Kww (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bduke (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep There are lots of references in books besides the original works. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Chronicles of Narnia or perhaps Setting of Chronicles of Narnia. No real-world notability, and most of the secondary sources provided in this debate appear to be trivial mentions and plot summary material. Lankiveil (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC).
• Redirect and Merge Agree with Kww(talk). Shoessss |  Chat  13:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia per Lankiveil. Tevildo (talk) 18:21, 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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] California Chess Congress of 1858

California Chess Congress of 1858 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The notability of this chess tournament is not explained in the article. This article has been tagged for notability since September 2007 but noone has given some useful references or some explanations for notability. According to the discussions taking place at WikiProject Chess the most important chess tournaments are notable (e.g. Linares chess tournament) but it has to be assessed with explicit arguments. SyG (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

1. undecided To those unfamiliar with chess, I guess we need to know why we even need to know this. How often does a Chess Congress take place and what does it all mean? - love2tun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Love2run (talk • contribs) 10:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I suspect this congress may be something like "the first chess congress in USA" or something similar, but this has to be clearly stated, explained and referenced in the lead of the article. SyG (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, try as I might, I can't find anything to indicate why this particular tournament is notable. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, so I can strike this out if I'm wrong. Lankiveil (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC).
• Delete – Could find no information on this particular event. Shoessss |  Chat  13:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I agree, no clue from the article about why this is significant. First chess tournament in California, maybe? None of the participants seem to have articles of their own except for the host. Even among fans of chess history (I'm sure there are some), it doesn't seem that it would be that historical. Mandsford (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It is in fact one of the earliest (maybe around eight or ten) chess tournaments worldwide, and one of the earliest recorded events in American chess history. Maybe a shorter article (without the games) would be sufficient. --DaQuirin (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the reasons above. Unfortuantely, it also doesn't include any particularly notable players on the main world stage. Also, if this congress was historically unimportant, then this article has to be deleted. Otherwise, there is justification for putting every single chess congress in the world on Wikipedia, which is obviously ludicrous. Andy4226uk (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep after editing to show the notability more clearly and remove the extraneous detail. Personally, i think a chess tournament there on that early date is intrinsically notable and worth an article, as wuld be any other documented article of the first signs of civilization.DGG (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment – you state that: “…on that early date is intrinsically notable“. Isn’t that a bit of a supposition? I believed the first chess match was a bit before this timeframe of 1858, say about 1,900 years before. In addition, I believe that the start of civilization was a tad before 1858. The criteria that has been used again and again, here at Wikipedia, for an article to be included, is that there are reliable, verifiable and creditable sources. Sorry to say, I have not seen that concerning this article. Shoessss |  Chat  03:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as sources go, the article says that the Congress was reported in the May 1858 issue of The Chess Monthly. (This isn't recorded in a references section so it isn't as easy to find as it should be, but it is in the second paragraph of the article.) This is a reliable source. On the other hand, I don't think it is necessarily sufficient to demonstrate that the topic is encyclopedic. The first international chess tournament was London 1851. The California Chess Congress of 1858 wasn't international and local chess tournaments had undoubtedly been held earlier, even in the U.S. (Although neither here nor there, chess isn't quite 1,900 years old. See Origin of chess.) Quale (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Although someone must have worked hard typing all this, it's basically just a list of moves. --andreasegde (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Undecided If this was the first formal chess tournament held in the USA then it is notable. I just want to know or see the reason this is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.235.52 (talk) 04:18, 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 JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Federal monarchy

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

I nominate this article for deletion. The term federal monarchy is entirely unsourced. There is not one citation for the term. It appears to be an invention, which is unfortunately used in other places in Wikipedia. It has, for example, been used in editing Monarchy of Australia, Monarchy of Canada and other Commonwealth realm related topics. The countries in the list on this page seem to have been put there on the most tenuous of grounds. The UK and Spain are not even federations, as the author acknowledges! --Gazzster (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you have any more thoughts on the topic? Ansell 00:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Not really. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or merge — The term was not made up by wikipedians. Google Scholar has 69 academic sources using the term. Also, contrary to your accusation, the article specifically says that the UK and Spain are not federations. I quote: "The United Kingdom is not officially a federation, but some of its constituent countries (esp. Scotland) have considerable power and autonomy." and "Spain is not officially a federation, but its constitution gives considerable power and autonomy to the governments of its subdivisions." If you really feel the need to get rid of it, at least merge it into monarchy and federation. The information about how monarchies work within federal states is still useful. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• comment If references are obtainable, why are they not used? And if there are academic sources, what sort are they? Reputable? Well known? Well-used? Why are we not given the opportunity to judge them? The case of the UK and Spain is exactly my point. If they are not federations, why are in the list? As fillers? I do not feel merging with federation or monarchy will serve any useful purpose. No, the article is shoddy and unscholarly.--Gazzster (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I sampled the 69 academic sources mentioned above and found that in each sampled case the country in question happened to be a monarchy and a federation. I did not find a single case where it was argued that a federal monarchy had qualities different from the qualities of a unitarian monarchy other than the qualities directly connected to the difference between a federation and a unitarian state. Nor did I find a single case where it was argued that a monarchial federation had qualities different from the qualities of a republican federation other than the qualities directly connected to the difference between a monarchy and a republic. In other words, federation and monarchy are disjointed concepts, they can be considered by themselves, nothing new emerges from a discussion of the joined concepts. Some months ago I corrected a few falsities in Federal Monarchy but overall I think it's one of these articles destined never to reach GA status. Let it go. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 05:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Try sampling this - but scroll back to page 96 and read from there for full effect. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are you trying to do original research? If someone outside of wikipedia coins the term Federal Monarchy why are you doing more research here to claim that it is invalid? Ansell 00:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, in agreement with Iterator12n. Being a federation and being a monarchy are two independent qualities which a polity may have. This is just the intersection of the two classes (federations and monarchies). Nothing distinctive emerges from the combination. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There is some tension between the two concepts as one implies unity of sovereignty and the other implies its division. They are therefore not independent. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Could you point to one or two sources that expand on the tension and dependence? -- Iterator12n ^Talk 15:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Freeman and Russell, as below, for starters. Uncle G (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. and Iterator12n. JohnCD (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NOEFFORT and WP:PROBLEM. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, isn't this just personal union--Him and a dog 14:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The comments above indicate that the sourcing problem can be cured. A federal monarchy is different from an absolute monarchy or a federal republic. The concept is one where individual provinces or states have their own lawmaking authority, but are still governed by a (please forgive me for "making gender an issue" blah blah blah) king or queen. Mandsford (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Why is there necessarily a difference between an absolute monarchy and a 'federal' monarchy? This seems to be quite an arbitrary assumption, and is one of the problems of the article. A nation can be a federation, yet still authoritarian. Case in point: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.--Gazzster (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  Interesting example of theory and practice. I recall that the U.S.S.R. also had freedom of speech and the right to vote in democratic elections. Leonid Brezhnev said so. Mandsford (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Quite. But the point stands.--Gazzster (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  I can't remember what it was to begin with... Mandsford (talk) 00:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, this article is a hotch-potch of original research and verifiable information. But there is verifiable information aplenty to be had. Gleig (George Robert Gleig (1879). A school history of England, abridged from Gleig's Family history of England, 15. ) talks about how Britain was a federal monarchy under Vortigern in 426. ISBN 0415158621 pages 146–147 discusses the creation of the federal monarchy of Federation of Malaya in 1957. ISBN 0773506764 pages 17–18 reports on the views of Edward Augustus Freeman on whether it was possible to turn the United Kingdom into a federal monarchy, ironically addressing the very aspect of the subject noted by Iterator12n above amongst other things. (You can also read his Lectures to American Audiences, published in 1882 by Trubner & Co. to read his views in his own words. He pointed to Germany as an example of a federal monarchy. Bertrand Russell, in his 1896 lectures entitled German Social Democracy, agreed with this.) ISBN 1419130129 page 56 talks about how Libya was a federal monarchy under Idris I in 1951. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton both talked about the United States being a federal monarchy at several points. ISBN 1550287346 pages 87–88 talks about how the 1867 Constitution of Canada created a federal monarchy.

  There's plenty of source material to make an article. Wield the merciless swords of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, chop out the unverifiable material and original research, and write an article based upon these and the many other sources that exist. The way to fix this article is to edit it. Be bold! Keep. Uncle G (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - This article must be kept. Federal Monarchy is a widely used term, and not invented for Wikipedia. If you conduct a simple search on Google Books you can see over 300 books which use the term. It's a very important term that requires a Wiki article in its own right. What this article needs is some work from Wikipedians to collect this mountain of references and cite them in the article. Lester 20:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• comment It is one thing for several authors to use the term in reference to particular countries and in a particular context. Another entirely to invent the category and put various nations in it. What are the criteria for membership in this club? The list, as it stands, actually has more than one kind of animal in it. There are federations under a single monarch, such as Australia. There are unions of several monarchies, such as the UAE and Malaysia. And then there are autonomous regions under a central government, such as the UK and Spain (which are not true federations at all, as the author recognises!). And then there is the implication that a 'federal monarchy' must be constitutional. Why? So there is no clear definition of what a 'federal monarchy' might be, and hence no crieria for classifying nations. But suppose we interpret federal monarchy strictly, as a union of states under a single monarch (the UAE or Malaysia should be called federal monarchies, not monarchy). There would be four or five. They are,the Commonwealth of Australia, the Kingdom of Belgium, Canada, the Kingdom of the Netherlands (depending on whether the Provincial States are considered states in union or not) and the Federation of St Kitts and Nevis. So the article would create a category for four or five nations. We would have to ask ourselves how useful that would be, especially considering how seldom, if at all, nations are categorised in this manner. Three of them, Australia, Canada, and St Kitts and Nevis, are already covered by Commonwealth realm.And that particular category is contentious enough, as its talk page shows. --Gazzster (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You are approaching the task of writing Wikipedia articles in the wrong way. Instead of worrying about what novel definition of a federal monarchy we, as Wikipedia editors, could work out for ourselves, in flagrant contravention of our Wikipedia:No original research policy, you should be looking at sources and seeing what countries sources say to be, or to have been at some point in history, federal monarchies, and what they say about federal monarchies. The historians and constitutional analysts are the experts, not us. They've written about this subject in history books, papers, and articles, and discussed it in published lectures. We are encyclopaedists. Always work from sources. Uncle G (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. As I've already said, where 'federal monarchy' may be used (I acknowledge the references, though I'm doubtful of some of them) it is in reference to a particular country or in a particular context. So while the term may be perfectably workable for a particular purpose, it is original research to create a category and try and stuff as many nations as possible in it without any clear idea of why they should be there.--Gazzster (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

comment: you acknowledge the hundreds of books and other references relating to 'Federal monarchy', and I respect that you disagree with many of those references. I think the answer is to keep the article, however, if there is any controversy about the use of the term, that can be included in the article. That is, provided you can find references that there is a controversy :) Lester 00:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The onus is not on me to prove controversy. The onus is on the article, at present unsourced with an original research tag, to demonstrate that it should be there. That is how Wikipedia works.--Gazzster (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as per Uncle G. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Per Uncle G. Edison (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• strong keep. Not a neologism (to add information from JSTOR, the term is found in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (1893), The History Teacher (1985), The English Historical Review (1974 and 1998), The American Political Science Review (2001), Russian Review (2001), The Review of Politics (1947), The Journal of Modern History (1955 and 1987), The Philosophical Review (1918), Italica (1961), Sociological Perspectives (1992), The American Journal of Sociology (1923), The Americas (1975), Publius (1980)). For those doubtful that people using the term makes it a valid category of political thought, and desirous of seeing it discussed as a category in its own right, with its own problems and potentials, see here, particularly pp. 96-100. Also, somebody should add Composite monarchy to "articles for creation" (or whatever it's called). --Paularblaster (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I originally added the OR tag to the article and raised this issue on the talk page of the article. The main examples used in the article of Federal Monarchies are Australia and Canada. This interested me, as having been involved in politics in Australia for the last 30 years, I had never previously seen the term applied to Australia. It seemed to me the term was made up, and the article original research, so I labelled it as such and invited editors to add references. Almost one month later no references have been added to the article. We now have in this debate two editors producing a potpourri of academic references to the words "federal" and "monarchy" being used at least in the same sentence, if not adjacent. Interestingly none of the references appear to apply to the main subjects of the article, Australia and Canada. If the supplied references, if indeed relevant, were to be used in the article, it would involve such a rewrite as to require the editor to start with a blank page. Therefore let's "be bold" and delete this fatally flawed article. If someone wants to then come back and write a new article based on published references, all power to them. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This doesn't really fit with just a scope of Australia and Canada. have you looked for references? Why is delete and then rewrite better than rewriting it as it is? Ansell 00:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Editors have had one month to re-write the article and no-one has felt inclined. It seems that if we are to wait for a re-write the only option is to delete the current article, as it is entirely unsupported by references. And while it is not my job to search for references for what is a fiction, I did indeed do a search, and found nothing to support the article in it's current form. So we either blank the page while waiting for a re-write, or delete the article. Deleting seems a better option. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The term is out there and has been for some time it seems according to the given references. Performing original research about the legitimacy of the article title in a deletion discussion isn't new but it isn't right nevertheless. Why oh why do political topics on wikipedia always become partisan debates? Ansell 00:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Nothing partisan. Editors have had a month to improve the article. Now at the last moment some have found a variety of references that don't support the article, but may support another article with the same title. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Federal republic exists; and, Paularblaster provides a number of sources that may prove the term to not be a neologism. --G2bambino (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Paularblaster is in as good position to improve the article with references as anybody, but nobody has. Without access to the references it is impossible to see if they are even relevant. In the meantime the article as it exists is misleading. It seems to me we have an article that says Federal Monarchy is X, but once we raise the point that in fact it is not X, others have come with references that claim it is Y. But the article still says it is X. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There is in fact a similar discussion on Talk:Federal republic.--Gazzster (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion about deletion there. That said, if this article is not to be kept, I wouldn't have an issue with merging this information into somewhere else. --G2bambino (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The editors there discuss why certain countries are classified as federal republics, and one asks what is a federal republic. He or she receives a reply which seems pretty much a single editor's arbitrary definition. I think we have an analogous situation. What would you suggest it merges with? Even if it did, the question, 'what is a federal monarchy' remains unanswered.--Gazzster (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, simply inserting a few references will not save the article as it stands. There are problems with it, as indicated here and on Talk:federal monarchy. Better to delete.--Gazzster (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The correct term for the article's content seems to be Constitutional monarchy. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

comment: The argument for deletion seems to change. Earlier it was inferred that the term 'Federal Monarchy' was invented for Wikipedia. When over 300 books were presented, we are told that references don't matter, even when some of the books are academic text books written by political scientists and eminent university lecturers. Even a simple Google web search shows high grade references for 'Federal monarchy' on the first page. The wiki article on Federal Monarchy has existed since 2006. It is only being listed for deletion now, because various arguments recently took place on other articles about whether or not Australia is a Constitutional or Federal Monarchy, or both. Deleting the opposing definition as being non-valid is a way to win the argument. However, eminents are widely using and defining and lecturing about the term 'Federal Monarchy' in large numbers of publications. Just look at the number of political scholars on the Google search list. The article must be kept, and the sheer weight of high-grade references proves its validity. The academics say its a valid term. It's not up to us to say its not.Lester 10:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, as far as I'm concerned, the term is still invented. OK, it has been demonstrated, far too late, and without any reference to the article, that some academics do talk about a 'federal monarchy'. The first and most obvious question is if these sources are so noteworthy, why were they not cited? But in these instances, the term is used in particular contexts. Here, the term is used as a category, to fit what are actually three different kinds of governments:

1) a federation under a single monarch (such as Australia) 2) several monarchies under a head of state (such as the UAE and Malaysia) 3) autonomous regions under a central government ( such as Spain and the UK).

I suggest that the category is an invention of Wikipedia. And I'd also refer interested parties to Talk:monarchy, where it is disputed what a monarchy actually is. The word itself means 'one ruler'. By that criterion, we could include the United States as a 'federal monarchy'. The category is not so neat as some suppose.--Gazzster (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment References do matter, that is the point. The references quoted (and it is difficult to judge them at this distance) do not support the article. If you must, re-write the article according to the references. The point is as it stands almost all of the current article would disappear. This is still a term in search of a definition. And that the article has stood since 2006 is neither here nor there. --Michael Johnson (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the argument for deletion does not change. Federation and monarchy are independent concepts. Above, there is talk of a mountain of references but where is the reference that shows anything emerging from "federal monarchy" that doesn't follow already from "federation" or "monarchy"?? Consider a simplistic illustration of my point: there are the concepts of "house" and "purple", and nothing is gained from an article about "purple house." On the other hand, take "house" and "white" and something new emerges from "white house." Federal monarchy appears to be a case of the "purple house" category, unless somebody comes up with referenced quotations to the contrary. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 03:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with constitutional monarchy, as it just seems to be a specific type of it, and prune any OR which exists. Orderinchaos 14:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

some references: Here's just a small sample of the varied references from the top of the Google list, which use both terms, 'Federal Monarchy' and 'Constitutional Monarchy' as separate meanings. Please use the 'Find' or word search function of your web browser to locate the words 'Federal Monarchy' and 'Constitutional Monarchy' in these articles: Ukraine Government embassy in Australia, University of Firenze, Italy, The Economist magazine, US Government National Science Foundation, The UK Local Government Finance Directorate, The Malaysian Bar (Law Association), China Central Television, etc etc etc.Lester 22:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, obviously exists and therefore deserves article. Gryffindor 13:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but..: Thanks, Lester, for going to the trouble. But are we going to read through all that? We would need to sift out the references and analyse them in their context. That would be a major scholarly work. And quite possibly original research. What we need is a definition that we can lift from a number of reputable sources. No, what we have here is a case of some well-meaning person/persons creating an article with a flimsy foundation. This happens all too often. Many schoolchildren use Wikipedia, and it gets copied on sites like answer.com. We have a responsibility to write and edit mature, well-thought through articles. The finest paper encyclopedias in the world, such as the New Encyclopedia Brittanica do not have federal monarchy or federal republic (I checked). Neither do they have Commonwealth realm or any number of entry titles to be found here.--Gazzster (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Back on 13 January you asked "If references are obtainable, why are they not used?" Now that they've been provided in abundance, why don't you use them? --Paularblaster (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should I use them? See the above paragraph. Why should I? Why didn't the person or persons who wrote the article in the first place use them? I am not going to spend hours sifting through pages of obscure websites, reviews and essays in order to save an article of dubious value. If you want to keep it, why don't you do it? If an article is challenged on account of lack of verifiability, the onus is on the article to reference itself and justify those references. That is the Wiki way. The fact is, reams of stuff has been provided. But no-one has tied them to the article or even published them here so they can be discussed!--Gazzster (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You should because you care about the quality of the article and want to improve wikipedia by editing articles. The "onus" is not on articles, it is on editors - a group to which you belong. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

But I'm not defending the article, am I? All we have is some persons citing material. But the material is not organised; it is not cited, quoted or referenced to any part of the article. We don't know how valuable the material is. We don't know the different contexts of the material. We dion't the authors. Tell you what, why dont you volunteer for the mammoth task of reference this article?--Gazzster (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazzster (talk • contribs) 01:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason the onus lies on you rather more than on me is that I didn't bring the article up for deletion. If you read the guidelines, you'll see that before bringing an article to deletion you should check for sources yourself, and either clean up the article or tag it for clean-up. Simply nominating it in disgust at the current state of it is not quite the thing. re-editing to add: Granted the present state of it is pretty awful, but it's not a hopeless case, and the initial rationale for deletion ("neologism", "original research") has been shown to be a good-faith error. "Federal monarchy" is a valid and existing category of political organization, distinct from "constitutional monarchy" and entirely distinct from "personal union" (two of the merge suggestions above); but the term applies particularly to (1) 19th-century Germany; (2) present-day Malaysia; and (3) theoretical discussions about possible forms of government. All the guff about Canada, Australia, Spain and the UK should be deleted - but not the article as a whole. I'm reluctant to edit it myself because my particular penchant is for biographical articles, not abstract categories. --Paularblaster (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, maybe - maybe we could make a rewrite. But not without gutting it. And I believe you've demonstrated that. You don't seem to be terribly sure of what a federal monarchy is. And I don't blame you, because the article isn't sure. And noone else on this page seems terribly sure either. You talk about the 'guff' about Australia and Canada, whereas someone like myself, for example, would think if you're going to talk about a 'federal monarchy', Australia and Canada are two of the few nations that could fit the category. Others might suppose, as I do, that Malaysia is a federation of monarchies, not a federation ruled by a monarchy.I agree that imperial Germany might have been a federation. Yet others might deny that the constituent states of Germany were truly federal; one could argue that they were not sovereign, and that they were coerced into a union which was really governed by Prussia. This is the problem. There is no real definition. Someone have stuffed a number of countries into an artificial box, and some act surprised that they don't appear to fit! Unfortunately many of the more humanistic articles suffer from this kind of arbitrary interpretation. Wikipedia's scientific articles are, on the whole, much better. My contention for deletion remains. Persons have produced heaps of unassessed reference material, used in particular contexts for particular countries. They can hardly count as valid sources. Better to delete, and perhaps supplement Monarchy.--Gazzster (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm entirely sure what a Federal Monarchy is, thanks. You still haven't quite got your head round the fact that this is an established term dating back at least 150 years. "Others might suppose, as I do, that Malaysia is a federation of monarchies, not a federation ruled by a monarchy": this is your own neologistic definition of what the term "federal monarchy" covers: a federation of states (monarchies or otherwise) which has a monarch as head of state for the federation as a whole who isn't necessarily internal head-of-state of each of the constituent parts - so that, for instance (pace your own POV on German federation), Bavaria remained a kingdom until 1918, with its own army and its own head of state (Ludwig II until he lost his marbles, then Luitpold, Prince Regent of Bavaria, then Otto I (still with Luitpold as regent), then Ludwig III), but from 1871 as part of the federation that had the German Emperor as head of state. Some of the other states federated to the Empire were not monarchies (Hamburg and Bremen, for instance, were and are city states within the federation), but the Empire as such was a monarchy - hence "Federal monarchy" rather than "Federation of monarchies". --Paularblaster (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be avoiding the meat of what I'm saying. Define 'federal monarchy' and reference that definition please.--Gazzster (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

To be blunt, yes I have been avoiding the meat of what you're saying, in an attempt to apply WP:CIVIL. What you're saying is that the original deletion rationale being groundless you want to change it to "can't be arsed". Sorry, I'll retract that. All you have to do to find the answer to your question is follow the links that I and others have provided, links that include several to works by E. A. Freeman, a source notable in himself. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC) --Paularblaster (talk) 13:15, 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. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interline travel

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

Undefined terminology. More likened to a dictionary entry than anything else. Wisdom89 (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• keep My ex-wife was an airline employee. She used terminology like interline and nonrev all of the time and they were somewhat interchangeable. I think this defines what interline travel is and it does have some supporting links to back it up. - love2run —Preceding unsigned comment added by Love2run (talk • contribs) 10:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete – The actual term is real. However just as stated, it better suited as a definition/term and moved to Wikitionary. Shoessss |  Chat  15:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean transwikify not delete. For my vote see below. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that is eactly what I meant. Clarified opinion. Shoessss |  Chat  18:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• transwikify - Per above. Shoessss |  Chat  18:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The article about how the process works seems to be more than a definition. This apparently is one of the fringe benefits not only peculiar to the airline industry, but unusual in the sense of an employee discount available from a competing business. I can't imagine a K-Mart employee getting a store discount at Wal-Mart. Mandsford (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - per Mandsford. But the article definitely needs to be reformatted. matt91486 (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I have dealt with formatting issue at the start. It is not a well-written article, but that suggests tagging for clean up, not for deletion. Accordingly, perhpas keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and edit, explaining it more fully. DGG (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly more then a dict def and very notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:12, 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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Cosgrove

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

Not notable per WP:BIO. While the article links to several articles, they all merely quote him, there is no evidence of substantial non-trivial coverage of the subject. Otherwise, the article reads like a resume. Article creator has removed two speedy tags already, I am recommending a speedy delete. hateless 08:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per G11 and concerns of nom. And, is it encyclopedic when an article for which there is purportedly no conflict of interest repeatedly refers to its subject by first name? Dethme0w (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Looks like this person is or was involved in Texas politics. If he is getting a syndicated radio show even if it is on travel, I think listeners would want to know something about his background. He may be known in the Dallas/Ft Worth market but people outside of that area may know little about him or his background. Important stuff to know if you are going to tune in and listen to some radio show or read about him in the paper, even if he is just quoted. Evidently the WSJ and others think enough of him to quote him on several different issues. - love2run —Preceding unsigned comment added by Love2run (talk • contribs) 10:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that all of this User's edits have been made today, and all but one have been to AfD discussions. Corvus cornix_talk 23:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, being chairman of a state Young Republicans (or Young Democrats, for that matter) is not notability. Being the radio host of a travel show is not notable in and of itself, if the show itself doesn't show notability. If he ran for office and won on his own, then he might be notable depending on the office, but I see nothing here. Corvus cornix_talk 23:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --andreasegde (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Leaders of political groups on a state and national level are notable. --User:robspree 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: I agree leaders of most political groups, state or national level are notable. Maybe not for smaller states, but Texas is a major player on the national scene. The YR's (as Young Republicans are known) were a force in the mid 80's including in Texas when this guy was the Texas State Chairman. Back then they were HUGE in Dallas with over 1,000 people showing up at every month for the local Dallas club's meetings. Members back then were people like Steve Barlett, former Congressman from Dallas and current US Senator from Texas Kay Hutchison who relied on YR's a great deal in her early days running for office. So I vote keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.235.52 (talk) 04:25, 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 Speedy delete. Hoax. Bduke (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German ice dog

German ice dog (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Hoax.

Also the following redirects to polar bear:

German Ice dog (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

German ice Dog (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

German Ice Dog (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Regards, High on a tree (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Speedy delete hoax as suggested by nom. docboat (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
2. delete Sounds like a hoax to me. Diet of penguins? Developed on Anartica? Yeah right. - love2run

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