Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 22 January 24 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents

{{

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editor in chief

Editor in chief (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article i just searched looks like something that does not qualify for Wikipedia, and this article here should be deleted per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is no more than a dictionary entry, and this page should either be deleted or transwikied to Wikitionary if it hasn't yet. Mythdon (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree with you, but you didn't put the AFD tag on the article. Lady Galaxy 22:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is what we call a stub. Please read our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy and our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. We don't delete stubs with potential for expansion into full articles. Given that several books on the newspaper industry devote entire chapters to this job alone, there is clearly scope for expansion of this stub. The PNC is satisfied. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Stub with genuine potential to be turned into a full featured article. Pharmboy (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, if it stays it needs to be moved to Editor-in-chief (which is how it's almost always spelled and the correct spelling). TJ Spyke 09:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, Redirect to Editing (which is what my above suggestion also redirects to). It's already covered in far more detail there. TJ Spyke 09:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
comment I am not necessarily opposed to merging, but it would seem that Editing is more general and describes a process, whereas this article describes a job or function. I would need that explained a bit before I would say merge is acceptable. My gut instict is that a merge isn't the proper course to take, but open to hear why my instinct is wrong. Pharmboy (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Only stubs that can never be more than definitions can be deleted as "dictionary definitions;" otherwise, they are simply stubs that begin at the beginning. It seems fairly obvious that this has potential for expansion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - it currently is a poor stub, but the article is very likely expandable as it is a job function. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep A key basic subject of the encyclopedia's coverage of journalism. VanTucky 01:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, a bit more than a dicdef, has sources, could be expanded.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:58, 28 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 this misspelling to Blastocystosis. The Transhumanist (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect complete. The Transhumanist (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blastocytosis hominis

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

contested prod. I'm not certain about afd'ing this article, but... I can find very few ghits for "Blastocytosis hominis" (only 73 if you include WP and non-English hits). Worse: Google Scholar lists only four hits for the term. So is this a non-notable disease? Looks that way to me. andy (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep I have to admit, I am not an expert on which diseases are 'notable' and which ones are not. My guess is that any disease that is accepted as "a disease" (parasitic infection, actually) by the medical community is notable in a defacto kind of way, just as "places" are automatically notable. Searching indicates that the disease is real, is known, is talked about at least by some in reputable sources. If the policy *is* that all defined diseases are automatically notable (my guess) I would say it would be a good candidate for withdrawal. Pharmboy (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as an implausible search term based on a misspelling, or redirect to Blastocystosis, where the disease and the infectious agent Blastocystis are discussed in detail. Deor (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with Deor as redirect is not feasible. Cyto and cyst are different--Lenticel (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
D'oh! - I never thought it might be a misspelling. andy (talk) 10:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Nor I, since I was getting hits with the misspelling. Pharmboy (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect to Blastocystosis, as per comment of Deor. —SlamDiego←T 11:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - perhaps someone who understands more biology that I do could look at the article creators' other contributions, some of which seem fairly weak? andy (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect and Delete. The redirect is needed, since this misspelling is seemingly spread around a bit. There's nothing in this article that needs saving; Blastocystosis is pretty comprehensive. Tim Ross·talk 18:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Not much point to the former (turning the page into a redirection) if then the latter (deletion of the page). —SlamDiego←T 18:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Good point - just turning the page into a redirect would suffice. Tim Ross·talk 18:48, 24 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. Tiddly-Tom 07:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glasvegas

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

Not sure if it fails WP:CSD#A7 or not. The user who created this article says that the band is notable (Talk:Glasvegas). Since the speedy deletion was contested, that is why I am bringing it here. Glacier Wolf 23:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Look at the sources - the article is very notable. Over time the community will fill it up with information that is already out there and I'm sure Glasvegas will become even more notable as 2008 moves along. It would be a disaster if Glasvegas got deleted as the band is indeed wikipedia-worthy. User:Johnthepcson
  • Weak keep but expand and source. They have a profile on the BBC's web site which gives them some semblance of notability in Britain. Redfarmer (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The group's getting rave reviews from the BBC, NME, and The Guardian. They've made plenty enough of a splash to pass WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Mentioned in reliable sources. Lurker (said · done) 15:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The sources clearly prove that Glasvegas is notable. User:humjosh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.201.36 (talk) 18:57, 24 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 merged, thanks Tim Ross. Canley (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BANTAM STAMP

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

non-notable art.; copied word-for-word? Rapido (talk) 23:10, 23 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of suicides

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

This should be a category, if anything. Meanest Streets (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nomination plus complete and utter lack of reliable sources. Meanest Streets (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Although "utter lack of reliable sources" sounds very dramatic, it would be very easy to source this one. This is superior to a category, which would be limited to the information that a person committed suicide, with no info about the circumstances. Finally, there's a question of taste in slapping the label "people who committed suicide" on each person's article. Mandsford (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I was 100% ready to come in and say Delete, but wanted to go read WP:LISTS first, to provide a solid rationale. Then I realized the list isn't indescriminate, it is informational, it is limited in scope to notable persons, and makes for a reasonable starting place to research suicide. It offers more than a category does, with brief info on who they are, is wikified nicely (demonstrating they are notable). And it is well organized, allows for possible suicides, well thought out, and the wikified nature makes it self sourcing. Its a dark subject matter and has a certain amount of ICKY factor to it, but that doesn't matter. In the end, it is exactly what an encyclopedia is supposed to do, particularly one that is not a paper encyclopedia. So, in spite of my first, knee jerk reaction, I have no choice but to say KEEP. Pharmboy (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep a useful well-done list and certainly it falls within the definition of lists in WP. The fact that this could also be a category if irrelevant; WP allows for both lists and categories on the same subject; they serve different purposes. Hmains (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep All the articles will be sourced. Lugnuts (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This used to be a very bad list, but it's improved since the last nomination. Referencing lists by linking to an article with sources is acceptable (and common), and the present version of the list has been pretty thoroughly vetted for completely unreferenced items. Although Category:Suicides exists, this isn't redundant to it, because there's no way for a category to give all the information listed (e.g., date of death). I don't see anything in the nomination to support deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This list would be huge and therefor very unreadable in my opinion. It should therefore be made a category. Poeloq (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Important topic. Article may need more references and rewriting, but not deletion. Suicide is an important issue, and the topic of this article is notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment More important than that the fact that the subject matter is notable is the fact that a List can provide context that a Category can not, and this article puts that to good use. Pharmboy (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Why should it be deleted? No reason was given in the nomination. When proposing an article for deletion, a reason should be given, otherwise it shouldn't even count as a nomination. The list has only notable people and if made into a category it wouldn't be able to have supplementary information. Timmeh! 20:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When we are together

When we are together (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable song. Macy's123 (review me) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete-per nom. Why is it even an article?--TrUCo9311 23:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable album song. Fails WP:MUSIC. Redfarmer (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, as I originally explained in my prod. Why, oh why, did someone decide to take this to AfD after it had already been prodded for three days? Where the hell is the sense in that? J Milburn (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. SingCal 21:54, 26 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boys with xray eyes

Boys with xray eyes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Author removed PROD without explanation, so here we are: Article is about a band that fails WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. —Travistalk 22:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Inadequate evidence of notability. —SlamDiego←T 11:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - based on the list of upcoming dates, this looks rather like advertising. Aside from spam, they faile WP:MUSIC. According to the article, they've only done local gigs, and are unsigned. There is no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've heard of them and I neither come from that area nor listen to that type of music. I know it was them because I remember thinking the name was the same as the debut album by Babylon Zoo. Assuming the claims are true then they are notable from the Kerrang bit alone. I suggest keeping it but putting a request for references to be sited. Skip1337 (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:MUSIC says that the band should be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. In any case, a search of the Kerrang! website fails to find anything relating to this band. Ditto for the Metal Hammer website. —Travistalk 20:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable group per WP:BAND as yet. Maybe after their tours they will be in with more of a chance. tomasz. 14:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete — Poor article. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:56, 29 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 G12 by Keeper76. Non admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Panos pardalos

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

This is a little essay- or resume-ish, take your pick. This guy just seems like a professor at a college, but many rewards. Maybe a rewrite may be in line?? Jonathan 22:59, 23 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 Big Brother Celebrity Hijack. Wizardman 18:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latoya Satnarine

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

Simply not notable as per WP:BIO. Hasn't actually won an award, and being a backing dancer alone is not enough. I would suggest a merge with Big Brother Celebrity Hijack, but all the information that can be verified is already there, so I'm nominating for deletion. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - no independent secondary sources and fails to separately meet WP:BIO. The Mariah Carey claim is unsourced and fails WP:V. BlueValour (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Big Brother: Celebrity Hijack. There is nothing to merge, but since the material is in the article, why not redirect if somebody looks her up on wikipedia? -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
If the article is deleted because she's non-notable, isn't it unlikely anyone will look her up on Wikipedia? BlinkingBlimey (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
With over 6 billion people in the world, how is it unlikely? The Transhumanist (talk) 17:32, 29 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; an obvious criteria G10. Marasmusine (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Luigi bertini

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

worthless nonsense mitrebox (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as a G10 and tagged as such. Also an A7. BlueValour (talk) 22:45, 23 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. --Angelo (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Garath McCleary

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

Prod removed without explanation. Hasn't played in a fully professional league - see Soccerbase here. He gets a page when he plays for Forest. Delete. BlueValour (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was speedy deleted — alex.muller (talk • edits) 22:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AaRon Bussey

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

Blank mitrebox (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy nonsense... — alex.muller (talk • edits) 22:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy A3 per nom. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as copyvio [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Korn (talk • contribs)

[edit] Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination at Princeton University

Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination at Princeton University (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete NN organisation Mayalld (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Although an institute within the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. they have apparently sponsored several hundred publications and conferences, per Google Scholar. [2], [3], [4], etc etc The article needs to be rewritten to show the notability and remove the empty PR talk. DGG (talk) 19:26, 25 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.--Kubigula (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TrustMe

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

Speedy request was declined due to under construction notice, but there is nothing here to indicate any notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. A non-notable company with all self-referential, self-serving references, no reliable sources. I also see more and more often people using the "under construction" tag to stave off deletion for obviously unsuitable and speediable articles. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think I came across this when patrolling, but, again, left it due to the 'under construction' notice. Possible COI too- created by a user named Andrewtrust, and this is their only contribution. J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete AndrewTrusttalk There is a live person editing this page. It was created to share information on PKNS technology, which is an alternative to traditional PKI technology used by providers like PGP and Entrust. This entry has existed for all of 12 hours. I don't see how you can expect people to create meaningful and technically accurate entries if you schedule them for deletion moments after they've been created. I am a novie Wikipedia user and it takes me more than a few moments to decipher how non-XHTML wikipedia templates function. This entry has worth, is not just a vehicle of self promotion and has valid scientific merit, as you would see if you would let me work on it long enough to take it out of under construction mode.
  • Delete per nom and WP:COI. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was withdraw. I started this afd debate in response to this edit, but although the article didn't sufficiently explain her notability, there are plenty of reliable sources out there to establish this. That particular template probably shouldn't have been added in this case, as the other reason for deletion given by the original editor was that the article lacked sources. Cleanup or unreferenced or sources might have been more appropriate. So I am withdrawing the debate and adding more appropriate templates to the article. Egdirf (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Karin Lowachee

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

A feletion notice was placed on this article due to a lack of reliable third party sources. I have no opinion on the matter personally as I'm not familiar with the subject, but feel we should have an afd debate as it may allow for greater consensus than the original method might have permitted. Egdirf (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: The Spectrum and Aurora awards should not be hard to source from the official websites. The authorship of the named books should not be hard to confirm at either Amazon or the publisher's website. (Also, I thought Lowachee had more than the three books out, but apparently not.) I am a little startled at the rationale. Whether she is notable based on those three not-upper-level awards, one of them from her own publisher, is another matter. I'm inclined to think so, but withhold judgement for the moment. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: I've updated the Wikipedia article on the Aurora Awards and per the official website this author did win for Best Novel (English) as stated. AfD is for determining notability, not a way to elicit more references (of which there are plenty). - Dravecky (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Yet often an article which is unreferenced gets references added as a result of an AFD, and thus improves the credibility and quality of Wikipedia. Granted, a nominator should do due diligence via a Google search or equivalent, but some of us have access to subscription newspaper files or scholarly journals and can find refs the nominator could not be expected to uncover. The end result of an AFD is often to remove an article about a hoax or nonnotable subject or to identify and add references to improve an article, and both are good outcomes. An editor can create hoaxalicious "vanispamcruftisement" articles far faster than other editors can find and add refs, and the AFD process is an important part of Wikipedia quality control to help convince people to cite refs when they add an article to Wikipedia, or see it nominated for deletion. Edison (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Keep - certainly meets notability. And no, in response to the previous comment, AfD is not for article improvement. Things should only be nominated when deletion is the logical expected result of the person nominating. Otherwise it should be tagged with clean-up tags. matt91486 (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment I only started the debate because a deletion template had been placed on the article, and I wasn't really sure about her notability. It wasn't a way of getting the article improved. Egdirf (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think a little background information is required here. The original deletion template was added by David Monniaux earlier this evening. His rationale for doing this was "Article does not point to why this author is notable, and lists no sources." If I shouldn't have opened an afd, let me know, and I'll be happy to withdraw it. Egdirf (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry, I didn't mean for that to sound like an attack on you, I was just trying to reply to the previous comment. It has nothing to do with this AfD in particular, but over the past week or so, there have been several instances of people nominating articles for AfD for reasons of improvement. I was not meaning to imply that you had done that. I was just intending to reply to Edison, who seemed to be defending instances in which people had nominated things for AfD for improvement. I have all confidence in the good faith of your nomination. I just personally believe she meets notability. matt91486 (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
ok, no worries. Egdirf (talk) 00:01, 24 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, since there is consensus that the sources put forward are either not independent or not substantial enough. Tikiwont (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Lessman

  ATTENTION!

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

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

~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

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

Vanity article, fails WP:BIO by a mile. Editor claims to be a historian (on the basis he draws maps and edits Wikipedia seemingly), I guess that makes us all historians. No source for such a claim, and no independent non-trivial sources either. One Night In Hackney303 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment While it may not have been started by the subject, the unsubstantiated claims about him being a historian which he insists on retaining in the article make it so in my opinion. One Night In Hackney303 21:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Besides being a userpage masquerading as an article, this one shows NO evidence of notability as required by the guidelines such as WP:N and WP:BIO. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails BIO completely. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Nakon 22:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - completely fails notability. Macy's123 (review me) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete How can we have any kind of meaningful article with no sources to verify any facts with. That's before we look at the self-promotion and notability issues. Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-referential, self-approving, non-notable bio without any information about the maps sufficient to decide whether or not they confer notability. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. per all above mentioned reason. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unnotable subject, unreliable and unencylopedic information in article. Mathsci (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Article is not a "userpage masquerading as a bio", it's a legitimate article that I didn't write, referring to me and my activities. And I've been told by local reporters that the article was checked while they were doing research on me. The article covers some of my political activities, I added the parts about my work with history, since it's relevant to Wikipedia. Those saying it "fails notability" or is "self-referential" need to provide actual proof, not make baseless accusations. Thomas Lessman (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment1 ONE editor (me) is a subject of the article; other editors have done their own work to the page, and as was already pointed out, I did not create the article, I only corrected some inaccuracies and added the parts about my historical activities that ARE relevant to my work on Wikipedia.
  • Comment2 As for claims that this article doesn't fit guidelines for "notable people", I read those guidelines, and there are several articles or parts of books that have sections about me in them. I can provide those again (first time I did so they were deleted by someone else). Thomas Lessman (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Talessman, "proof" (through Wikipedia:Reliable sources) must be provided for something to be kept in the encyclopedia, not for it to be removed. There are no "baseless accusations" here; comments are made strictly upon the content of the article as it now reads. Please don't take this AfD discussion as a personal attack on you or your credibility. It is only a discussion about whether this particular article, as now written, falls within our established policies and guidelines for inclusion in the encylopedia. Short comments such as "not notable" simply mean that another editor, hopefully familiar with the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (people), has looked at the article and judged that it fails those criteria. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Andrwsc, if the article can be improved, it should be improved, not deleted. It is relevant to keeping it up because it has been used by news sources to reference information about the subject. Just because I happen to be the focus of that subject means nothing - the edits are minor, only meant to improve inaccuracies like where I am, and the chronology of my activities. You and Hackney say it needs "sources", which it HAD until someone deleted them as "not relevant" - even though they verified and provided information you said it needed. If you are truly concerned about what you say, then help me re-add that information, instead of wasting time arguing to delete the article. Thomas Lessman (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This was the last version of the page before the editors you cite above began editing the article: [5] You can see here that the seven "sources" are:
  • Your own personal self-published webpage
  • Your own Wikipedia user page
  • Your own personal, self-published blog
  • A subpage of your own personal self-published webpage advertising a business you own
  • The webpages of several organizations you belong to that simply prove you belong to them.
In order to be deemed notable, per WP:N and WP:BIO, people who aren't you, and aren't associated with you or businesses or organizations you belong to, need to have written about you extensively. I see no evidence of that. If ANYONE has any evidence of that, then provide it here, and you will see the delete votes change sides quite quickly. As yet, I have seen no evidence that there are any reliable, extensive, and independent sources that discuss Thomas Lessman in any detail... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I found three sources, and cast my recommendation as weak keep. See below. TableMannersC·U·T 05:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already begun adding the requested references. Some of them link to information on my personal website (especially for requested citations needed for statements like me being a Libertarian my whole life - it's on my website). Some of these link to articles referencing the statements (like the results of the 2004 and 2008 elections). If I can find links to the published articles about me or my activities in magazines (like in BSI International, In Search Of Fatherhood, etc), I'll post those as well. It will come in time, do not delete the article. Thomas Lessman (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment The edits made by Talessman are not minor. Here is where he added the laughable claim that he is a historian because he drew a few maps, and here and here are where he edit warred to retain the hilarious claim. One Night In Hackney303 02:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per notability. Marlith T/C 02:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: does anyone know how to bring the "FOUL PLAY?" comment, below, back into this section. The editor who posted it goofed and now it's its own section, meaning it can't be replied to, does not register as being part of the Lessman discussion, and it's messing up the fomatting of the page in general. Thanks. 23skidoo (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    It's been moved to the talk page. Nakon 03:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Now that is a fast response - thanks! 23skidoo (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No claim to notability, COI problems, etc. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Weak Keep I've found four five six reliable sources to establish notability as a political candidate and activist. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Though it is certainly debatable per WP:BIO. TableMannersC·U·T 05:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment None of those are non-trivial, and he's still fails WP:BIO for politicians by a mile. One Night In Hackney303 05:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, I was just reading that and changed my recommendation from keep to weak keep. I think two of them are non-trivial (voting habits and illegal immigration.) TableMannersC·U·T 05:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Not really, unless you're planning to write an article about things he's said... One Night In Hackney303 06:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't appreciate the tone. I am just trying to help out here, with sources, and by improving the article. I have found six sources. Please read them, and comment appropriately. I am not sure if this person is notable or not per WP guidelines, but he is certainly more notable than I am. I understand that the article might get deleted anyway, but don't blame me for giving the article a fair shake. TableMannersC·U·T 06:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
No need to get defensive. I have carefully reviewed the sources provided. They all refer to the subject in the context of electoral knockabout and none of them provide in-depth coverage of him in a way that would meet the criteria for the notability guideline. None of the coverage appears to be beyond the local press and the subject does not appear to have been elected to anything. Failed candidates for state office are not notable in themselves and the sources provided do not otherwise provide an independant existance that is adequately documented to allow an article to be sources from them. So, in short, we don't need this article. (Note that I have alreay expressed an opinion up top}. Your research is appreciated but unfortunately we don't have emough to keep this. Spartaz Humbug! 09:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, notability not established. Mention at Million Dads March Network if notable to that. Just being notable to some notable topic doesn't automatically translate to sufficient notability for a dedicated bio article. As a compromise redirect to Million Dads March Network. If he is elected to some political office or something, reconsider. --dab (𒁳) 09:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete -- 221 votes out of >10,000 cast: the subject of this article is not notable. --A. B. (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Additional comment: The Million Dads March Network article has also been a problematic article and Mr. Lessman insists on restoring this attack image to the article: Image:Bullock the Hutt 01-2004.jpg. This organization generates zero hits in a Google News Archive search. That article's creator, RexJudicata, also created Parents Without Rights and was eventually blocked indefinitely for POV-pushing and making death threats. A RexJudicata sockpuppet, Agwiii created Mr. Lessman's article. Another sockpuppet, Cia123454321, edited the Lessman article and created Grayson Walker, Jamil Jabar and Peter T. Wilson articles. --A. B. (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I should note that Talessman (based in Kansas) is definitely not another RexJudicata sockpuppet nor is he 66.176.106.94, the Florida-based IP making edits similar to RexJudicata.[12] --A. B. (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Definitely not, we know exactly who Rex is, as Rex he never tried to hide his real life identity or location. Rex clearly was Cia123454321, Thomas clearly is somebody completely different and we must not judge him as an editor based on Rex's actions. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you care to make an argument based on policy? Is he notable? Can you help us to verify this using reliable sources? Off topic rants about why you hate Wikipedia are not helpful to the discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggest just leaving 66.176.106.94's comment in place. It gives a good sample of the RexJudicata-type edits that have permeated this cluster of articles at various times. --A. B. (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment This is clearly a post by an indefinitely blocked user, ie RexJudicata (to name the main account) and while I wont remopve it either I would urge the closing admin to ignore this vote. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not planning on removing this one. At least it offers an opinion on this particular article this time. The original version, which I also probably wouldn't have removed a second time myself, was just an anti-wiki rant. --Onorem♠Dil 15:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That's OK. I kept links to the earlier versions (first part of item D) --A. B. (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Why delete or edit what was a legitimate complaint, relevant to this conversation, just because you didn't like the point made by the person making the complaint? Being pro-Wiki or anti-Wiki has no relevance to whether an article should be deleted. And funny, that's the point he was making about wiki-bullies. I also read the info about wiki-stalkers, and it applies as well. You definitely should not be editing another editor's comments just because you don't like what it said. Thomas Lessman (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
His original edit was not relevant to this conversation. "Being pro-Wiki or anti-Wiki has no relevance to whether an article should be deleted." - Exactly the reason why his comment was removed. It had nothing to do with this discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 16:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It looked relevant enough to me. I've already raised the alarm that this whole charade is nothing more than an episode of wiki-bullying, started by a wiki-stalker, who obviously is just fishing for trouble. Seems to me that that is exactly what the anonymous poster was defining, and it should be taken into account when considering this article for deletion. Does the article really NEED to be deleted, or is it one that can be improved? Wiki-bullies never give the chance to prove or fix articles, they just delete them. Wiki-stalkers then go on a rampage and start attacking every article or contribution by their target. Seems to me the demand to delete this article was started for that exact reason, because someone didn't like my contributions. No compromise will work for him, even when trying to satisfy the criteria he put in place (citations? not good enough. Got more? Still not good enough).
Thus you had no business editing his original edits. Seems a few of the people arguing vehemently FOR deletion seem to have trolled out against other similar articles. Seems they have a problem more with the subjects at hand, or maybe they don't like the issues and are attacking articles that speak about the issues. In any case, there is FAR more going on here now than just an article that needs work. The people demanding it the loudest happen to be wiki-bullying their way through and deleting several articles that should be kept. Thomas Lessman (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • OK enough. Please stick to commenting on the edits and not the editor. Simply, if you want to argue against deletion you need to read our policy on verification and guideline on biography notability and then explain how the article can be changed to meet these. All the delete arguments are based on policy and custom here and attacking users for this isn't acceptable. The truth is, this article came to notice because you were edit warring over maps you created, broke the three revert rule and generally created enough disruption to cause users to look at your editing. If you want to fly under the rader you have to avoid making noise and you failed to do this. I realise that this episode must be upsetting for you but I'm afraid that you have been the author of your own misfortune and our patience for the disruption you are causing is now close to the end. Please, as I asked above, try and confine yourself to discussing edits and not editors. And I also want to record that I do not believe there is any merit to the suggestion that you are a sockpuppet. Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 17:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Look, Talessman, whatever problems other than notability your article may have can get fixed; that's not really what this AfD is about. The problem that many here see is that there has not been enough coverage of you in reliable sources as required by our very specific guidelines on notability. This applies regardless of whether some editors like you or dislike you. Heck, Adolf Hitler has an article and nobody likes him; my kindegarten teacher was beloved but she has no article. Most people don't qualify for articles. I've had more coverage than you and I don't qualify for an article. A good closing admin will see through any POV comments here and make a decision on the article based on facts and our rules. That means he or she will probably focus most on TableManners' comments and look at the depth of coverage in the sources he cited. Everything else here will be viewed mainly for a sense of what the community consensus is about those sources. He or she will not really care who Thomas Lessman is or what he advocates. Future solid mainstream press coverage will get you a new article here in the future even if this first one gets deleted. Trust me, when you become the first Libertarian governor in America, it'll be a big article. --17:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Non Notable. BigDunc (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Userify or delete User page masquarading as a bio. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete while continuing to assume good faith on the part of all involved. I just don't see anything in the article that qualifies as a real claim to notability, and I'm especially inclusionist when it comes to politicians. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO, WP:V, etc. I would also like to remind the subject of the article to assume good faith...I'm a little disturbed by all the accusations he is throwing out. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment -- see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Million Dads March Network --A. B. (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment - see also: the talk page for this project section about Wiki-Bullying and stalking, and Talk:Million_Dads_March_Network section on Protect Article, [13].
  • Delete No specific detail whatsoever and does not have any interesting facts.--Pookeo9 (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP Actually, I would like to see Mr. Lessman given some sort of citizenship award for putting up with the silliness here. Notable? He's certainly more notable than any of these critics. That does create a consensus of notablity. I've read the silly things written by ab, squakbox and others. There should be some wikistuff here about and by people who have lives, but i find little. After reading some things here, and on Lessman's site, I contacted SR Ann Mah (sp?). As a member of the Kansas legislature, SHE considers Lessman notable. I think that's much more than can be said for these self-style editors and wikis. I'm shocked to see the articles on Stephen Baskerville deleted! Same for Gregory Romeu. I think the article on Lessmand and the MDM are must reading in today's times. I also read the "father's rights" piece. The most amazing thing there was the absence of people's names. It's a secret, anonymous movement. However, it suffers from the same political correctness as Mr. Lessman - conservativism versus leftist-socialism. If Thomas were a Marxist instead of a Libertarian, there would be no discussion about keeping or deleting. However, since he's a Libertarian American, he's doomed on this site. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. — 65.12.222.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Is he certainly more notable than any of these critics? Probably. And you say that a member of the Kansas legislature...considers Lessman notable. All very good! Unfortunately, both those points are utterly irrelevant. Wikipedia:Notability (people) is what matters here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Evidence has been presented to show this article DOES fit the wiki-guidelines for Notability, and more is on the way. You keep ignoring some of the evidence, and dismissing other evidence as "not important enough". Another editor was going as far as arbitrarily deleting and sabatoging efforts to add citations he demanded. There is definitely more going on here than some of these editors are letting on. Thomas Lessman (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Where is this evidence? I've just looked up through the entire AfD...I don't see anything. --SmashvilleBONK! 02:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

KEEP:COMMENT: I see nothing wrong with this page. Lessman obviously has SOMETHING to offer this world if he is willing to stand up FOR the MEN of this Country who are under fire by all the Femininsts, UltraExtremist Liberals and Socialists who are trying to destroy Men and ther ability to raise their own kids. Fathers are treated today like the Jews were in the 40's..Keep up the GOOD work, and hopefully, the psychos out there who have no clue about the CSE Gestapos will take some time to better educate themselves.$$$governthyself$$$ (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC) this user (contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ta-Shma

Ta-Shma (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Rips apart WP:NPOV. Sounds like an advert. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 21:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete-per nom.--TrUCo9311 21:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom, non-notable. Cheers, LAX 21:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: They do have a CD [14], and there are some reviews out there [15]. They appear to more popular on collage stations than commercial broadcast. Being on the fence here, I'll just add my comment rather than throwing an opinion either way. Yngvarr 21:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep — Seems interesting. Not every day you bump onto Orthodox Jewish rappers, lol. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 03:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment Of course, generally speaking that's one of the arguments generally considered to be unpersuasive at AfD. If you haven't all ready done so you might want to look at WP:INTERESTING. Xymmax (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Despite my comment above, it *is* interesting. Unfortunately, they also don't quite pass the notability threshold. With more information it might be possible to fit them into the "most prominent representative of a notable style" category of WP:MUSIC, although I'm not certain that Hasidic rap is distinctive enough to qualify. Anyway, at this point they appear to fall a bit short. Xymmax (talk) 14:26, 31 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. Keeper | 76 19:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] B. Scott

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

I speedied this article twice for A7, non-notability. The author created a new article, with some claims to notability. I'm not sure they are enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia though. I get the impression that this is just another blogger about showbizz and celebrities, nothing that sets him apart from others doing this. AecisBrievenbus 21:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete- I agree, this person in non-notable. Other than his "lifestyle choice", I don't see him being any notable.--TrUCo9311 21:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Cheers, LAX 21:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Delete. 17 sources listed, two are youtube videos, four are back to his own blog, and of the rest, as least one is dead. Of those that may actually be live links, they're wordpress blogs of questionable notability, what I would examine WP:RS for, and use some of the examples at Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. Yngvarr 21:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No reliable sources to indicate notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE If you all actually take the time out to watch his vids and visit his site, then you would realize that his take on celebrities are not cruel or hateful. He always has something positive to say regarding the crazy situations that these stars go through. He does not bash or wish any harm to them. He is truly a great human being, and the industry needs more people like him. He has been featured on/in sites/magazines such as Wireimage, Bqemagazine, Clik magazine, and the Jamaican Observer. He will host three events for Washington, DC’s Gay Black pride (which he will host again this Summer) and has also hosted the HBFF (Hollywood Black Film Festival). DO NOT DELETE!!!!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlt02k (talk • contribs) 22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC) — Tlt02k (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --12 Noon 2¢ 22:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. As near as I can tell from looking at the references, this individual decides what events he's going to cover, then covers them, and tells us that that's what gives him notability -- which it doesn't. Another blogger/YouTube "celebrity" without any reliable sources as per comments above. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Objection to Deletion. As contributor to this article, I have thoroughly re-read notability and reliable sources. Subject is the only openly gay, multi-racial commentator covering all aspects of media regardless of race, gender, orientation, or class. Moreover, similar articles in nature (see: Perez Hilton; Chris Crocker) are written in the same tone and still stand undeleted. Diverse representation of subjects within this area of Wikipedia is necessary and demanded. Subject expands beyond blogging and is clearly an actor, activist and host. All dead links have been fixed, and excluding blogs, youtube and self-sourced material there are now 6 reliable sources backing relevancy of subject ranging from published work to proof of occupation and notability. Just being 'positive' is a unique characteristic but has not been cited by author as proof of validity for article. Accounting4Taste is stating a subjective opinion as grounds for deletion. Such claims are not valid. Subjects' full body of work including all events hosted have been referenced properly, rather than claims of a few 'selected' events to be covered and referenced that are insinuated. Lastly, there are 6 working, relevant references to help establish subject's notability which under Wikipedia guidelines (which does not state any numerical standards) should be enough. lrprice (talk) 23 January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 23:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was sufficiently stung by the above suggestion that I went back and tried to look at the article from scratch, identifying the claims for notability and holding them up against the relevant policy statements. I still don't see a reason to change my !vote for deletion, although I admit there is more there than I saw by only tracing a representative sample of the links. This individual may have notability when his career approaches the level of Perez Hilton, whom I believe has achieved notability by being the subject of references/quotes/allusions in other media; right now, it's self-publication -- at a very high level of self-publication, but self-publication nevertheless -- and my understanding of self–publication in any medium is that it does not confer notability. If someone has policy to cite, I'd be pleased to hear it; I think this might be a case where policy doesn't entirely cover the situation, because this type of potential notability is so new and unusual, but I just cannot see how true notablity attaches to this type of self-promotional activity. I'm also concerned that Wikipedia might be being used as an advertising vehicle in this type of situation. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE
  • DO NOT DELETE
  • DO NOT DELETE
  • DO NOT DELETE
  • DO NOT DELETE
  • DO NOT DELETE
  • DO NOT DELETE
  • DO NOT DELETE
  • DO NOT DELETE
  • DO NOT DELETE
  • DO NOT DELETE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simply lysha (talk • contribs) 00:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(I'm restoring this comment, which was added when the material above was blanked) DO NOT DELETE B.SCOTT'S PAGE!! HE ROCKS!! :o) Accounting4Taste:talk 23:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • DO NOT DELETE. Read entry by lrprice regarding issues of notability (see: Perez Hilton; Chris Crocker) Ytfamilia:talk 00:39, 24 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Delete I've really tried to believe that he's notable, but google searches for "B. Scott" turn up other people (like actor Larry B. Scott (Lamar from Revenge of the Nerds); searches of the name Sessoms don't turn up much; there's a few references to "B. Scott" in a news search, but nothing indicating that he's considered important. He may be the next Rona Barrett; he just isn't there yet. Mandsford (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

- *DO NOT DELETE. This is an interesting circular discussion that seems to almost have less to do with whether or not B. Scott is notable, and more to do with acceptability of the mediums that make him notable. For those of us who follow B. Scott's broadcasts and blog (and there are THOUSANDS of us), there is no question that he is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. While it is true that blogs and video-sharing sites (like YouTube) allow anyone to have a public face and are relatively new mediums that are not yet considered mainstream sources, this is quickly becoming a fallacy. Of course, as one of the above objectors pointed out, Perez Hilton is perhaps the most well-known blogger. While I cannot disagree that blogging and video-sharing are TECHNICALLY "self-publishing," I WILL argue that to ignore THOUSANDS (not hundreds) of readers and viewers because the mainstream media has not discovered something is very erroneous logic. Anyone can put up a video and proclaim themselves "notable," but not everyone can garner 50,000 PLUS viewers on a single video (as has B. Scott). Not all YouTubers are accepted as "YouTube Partners," which basically means that said partner has "enough" regular viewers (YouTube specifies "thousands") that the corporate arm of YouTube can sell ad space on said poster's videos (as is the case with B. Scott, a YouTube partner). Additionally, not all "self-publishing" people can claim to be featured in ANY magazine. B. Scott is slated to be featured in the February 2008 issue of "Clik Magazine" (http://www.clikmagazine.com/img/24.jpg for a preview of the issue). B. Scott has also been quoted by other notable blog sites like Concreteloop, which has well over 1 million readers DAILY; has been featured on B.E.T.; and has garnered such coveted celebrity interviews as Kanye West, Rihanna and Ne-Yo just to name a few (http://concreteloop.com/2007/12/video-b-scott-on-the-chris-stokes-scandal). In addition to his printed and video blogs, he also interviewed celebs on the Red Carpet at the 2007 ASCAP Rhythm & Soul Award Show in L.A. (For video of red carpet interviews: http://lovebscott.com/wordpress/?s=ASCAP) B. Scott is a phenomenon who might be unknown to some of the objectors here, but he has definitely become a notable personality to THOUSANDS of subscribers who voluntarily tune-in every day. I hope Wikipedia will reconsider deletion of this individual because I think at BEST this is a borderline case, but at worse, this is an outright mistake because of a lack of recognition of this individual's medium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennsifan (talk • contribs) 01:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE —Preceding unsigned comment added by TinnyLOVE (talk • contribs) 03:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC) :*— TinnyLOVE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment If 50,000 people slow down to look at a car accident, it's still a car accident and not notable; YouTube statistics don't confer notability because the people who make up those statistics are not experts in anything except their own amusement. "Lots of people know about X" is not a valid argument here for the notability of X; fame, yes, but notability, no. Being quoted by other "notable blog sites" doesn't confer notability -- that's a circular argument that is known as "drinking your own bathwater", and in the PR trade as "logrolling". Of course bloggers talk about other bloggers; if you drive traffic to them, they drive it back to you, and a mutual backscratch is had by all, enabling you to sell more advertising. Getting "coveted celebrity interviews" doesn't confer any notability because the interviewer is just facilitating the subject's self-publishing (being a cog in Rihanna's PR machine/media strategy is less than impressive). The one thing that you've mentioned that would confer notability -- a little bit of it -- is being featured in "Clik Magazine"; IF AND ONLY IF "Clik Magazine" is a reputable source of expert opinion. Since I've never read more than a few pages of it, I can't say with any degree of accuracy whether they can be trusted to tell anyone about anything. Since they apparently don't know how to spell the word "click", I tend to doubt it, but I'm willing to be convinced. What I'm not willing to do is accept that a

mention in an obscure magazine is sufficient notability for someone to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. I've seen Perez Hilton on reputable news programs; he really is notable. I have nothing against the notability of a blogger in and of itself. What I object to is the notability of THIS blogger, because it hasn't been demonstrated in appropriate terms for Wikipedia. When Mr. Scott is quoted as a source by CBS news, then I'll write the darn article for him myself; in the meantime, I suggest he'll have to go without. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Do Not Delete: There is a place for famous you-tuers why cant he be on here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.4.203 (talk • contribs)

Do Not Delete: B.Scott is making revolutionary moves within the entertainment industry by using YouTube as a mechanism to change the life of his fans by sharing his own experiences and advice. He is a noted entertainment host and has been featured for entertainment contributions in national publications (See, Clik magazine this month) for a recent view. As a gay entertainer, B.Scott is not only notable but he is necessary. Just because he has not been relevant for you, does not mean his is not relevant to the world. Check your sources. Blaackstarr (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaackstarr (talk • contribs) — Blaackstarr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • DO NOT DELETE- B. Scott is notable! There are many other bloggers featured here on wikipedia that are less known than him, so why are people trying to delete him? B. Scott runs a very successful entertainment website, and his videos on youtube get viewed by thousands of people daily. B. Scott has done lots of things in the entertainment industry, interviews, red carpet events, etc...B. Scott is becoming more popular by the day, and there are people that would like to know more about him, and wikipedia should allow him to stay on this site! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolbeans1981 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC) :*— Coolbeans1981 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 09:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE -HES A VERY GREAT GUY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.205.207 (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with whether he deserves an article. Please present an actual argument. Did this guy ask his fans to post here? What's up with all these editors who have very little (if any) edits outside of this AFD? I guess they don't know admins will usually ignore their comments. TJ Spyke 11:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Might be notable but badly needs something that establishes the fact. (As a side note, I've missed the Good Old-Fashioned "do not delete" fests. We used to have a lot of these. What happened to them, anyway? Oh yeah, CSD A7 Web happened, that's what - and as it stands, the article is just barely above that criterion.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


  • DO NOT DELETE - B. Scott is entertaining, thoughtful, funny, and on his way to great things. he appeals to all walks of life, well spoken and i would liek to follow his work. he deserves this recognition please do not deny him his moment. -------lana313 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdotty313 (talk • contribs) 09:24, January 24, 2008— Sdotty313 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Otherwise yes, but regrettably those attributes aren't enough to make an article - a shame, really, because I like funny things. Not everything funny needs an article in an encyclopaedia, though. We have to evaluate this as every other biography or a web site, and those can be only evaluated through verifiable facts, not subjective qualities like funniness and entertainment factor. In other words, we need proofs of popularity and recognition. A few online mentions and one upcoming print article doesn't sound terribly convincing yet. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Youtube overall statistics are validation for 'popularity and 'recognition'. Statistics extend beyond individual written 'opinions' of who is "notable" and who isn't based on flawed logic that doesn't significantly match the guidelines for Wikipedia's notes on notability. The subject is among the top 100 most viewed youtubers which should denote some type of notability at least as one aspect of the article and is not the only main claim in the article. The numbers express that there is significant interest in the person. The comment stated that "YouTube statistics don't confer notability because the people who make up those statistics are not experts in anything except their own amusement" is like erroneously saying that census statistics don't mean anything when they are taken because the people being counted are only experts in their own mere existence. Such claims and comparisons would be illogical and unintelligent. In addition, there could easily be an inherent bias in wikipedia article challenging as scene above in comment by wwwwolf that states 'I miss the good old-fashioned 'do not delete fests' , given that those who take the time to participate in these discussions will tend to have a set of interests and backgrounds that may differ greatly from a large subset of actual wikipedia users. In addition, such participants may just be looking to 'challenge' a set of wikipedia entries just for the sake of a 'challenge' and not based on any other significant principle. Clik magazine is the largest Black Gay & Lesbian Monthly publication in the United States that has over 100,000 readers, and is the most innovative publication to serve the Black GLBT community for over 10 years. CLIK offers a new, exciting approach to delivering timely community and national news, arts and entertainment, and more than twenty other feature departments. The creative choice of the name 'Clik' should not be misconstrued for illiteracy or lack of intelligence as is suggested above by Accounting4Taste. All claims by this user have had an acutely biased tone. Such claims, as were made by the user. could potentially be viewed as personal attack, condescendingly or covertly homophobic and simply uninformed. These types of 'subjective' personal issues are not basis for deletion of an article. lrprice (talk) 25 January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment Since I'm a gay man who has devoted more than 35 years of his life to fighting homophobia, and a founding member of two national-level organizations in that area, to have it suggested that I'm homophobic means that this discussion will now have to take place without my further contribution, since it has descended from the acrimonious to something which I have no words to describe. I'll save my breath for where it will do some good; I'm removing this discussion from my watchlist. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment to above Please view Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, especially the section entitled Use of statistical data, which pertains to your argument above. Yngvarr 00:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Let me clarify what I meant with "old-fashioned do-not-delete fests". This is one of them. In the past, it was relatively common that an article about a blog/web community/etc be nominated for deletion, the regulars at the site came here and all screamed "do not delete" (which, incidentally, makes it easier to identify such users, because AfD instructions specifically tell people to use "Delete"/"Keep"/"Merge"/etc). These haven't been seen lately because nowadays, non-notable websites can be deleted without discussion; the nominator states above that the article has already been speedy-deleted twice. These discussions were fascinating not because we got to see masses of obviously bewildered newbies; they were fascinating because we gave the fans of the site benefit of doubt. We've tried in this discussion refer to the very much applicable policies (notability demonstrated through verifiable facts coming from reliable sources).
      Your theory that AfD regulars are different from everyday users is valid to an extent. However, AfD discussions are based on Wikipedia's policies, which in turn are based on the prevailing consensus (and some are based on facts that are ultimately beyond our control, such as copyright law). Consensus means, basically, "everyone we asked about this thought this was a good idea, and no one had better ideas". It doesn't mean "We asked everyone we could, but no one dared to do anything because it might have annoyed someone we didn't ask" or "we didn't dare to do anything because one user said doing that would annoy them". Our policies have been formed through editor input; they get changed when someone says "this old method demonstrably doesn't work, I have a better idea", and when enough people have given their feedback, we have a good idea if something has to change and how.
      In this case, the consensus is this: We get tons of new articles about biographies and web sites. We can't keep them just because we're nice to these people or communities. We've got to set the bar somewhere or everyone gets lost among the chaff. We can't please everyone by guaranteeing they get an article, but we can guarantee majority of readers that they don't need to wade through a swamp of completely forgettable biographies about the six billion Average Persons - in short, they come to the Encyclopaedia to read about People That Matter, so they should probably easily find what they're looking for: some people who are demonstrably Up There, not some people who merely wish they were Up There.
      Finally, I agree that this particular comment about the publication was uncalled for. Scepticism about sources is a good thing, but random mocking of publication based on name isn't productive. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) (an editor with a particularly dumb user name, and even dumber real name =) 00:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Comment Material,Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, was read and has been re-read at suggestion. The only new interpretation I gain from the reliable source notations is that statistics have a high possibility of being misinterpreted. Regardless of YouTube Statistics and in addition to the upcoming 'Clik' article, subject has been cited by Wire Image, the largest entertainment authority in celebrity news and imagery since 2001, as a working 'celebrity commentator'. They also provide proof of his hosting background and material with specific visual imagery at various work sites. The Jamaican Observer, a legitimately recognized international source of news, business and entertainment articles, also serves as valid reference for subjects notability and international relevance. They have written about the subject stating relevance, popularity and the medium of his work. The Daily Tar Heel, running since 1893, and with a successful web version published since 1994, has national and international readership that exceeds 700,000 page views a month. They have provided a full two-page write-up of the subject as a certified internet celebrity. All of these claims have been produced by working journalists and authors, exist in print, and are clearly referenced in the article. Wikipedia guidelines state a need for reliable sources on any subject. However, no numerical quota for amount of sources is identified. Please re-read all sources before making any other nominations for deletion or commentary.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrprice (talk • contribs)
  • Thank you, TakiyahJ, for your attempt at astroturfing. Too bad that AfD is not a vote, but a discussion. It doesn't matter how many people "vote" DO NOT DELETE, if that's all they have to say, their comments may be disregarded. AecisBrievenbus 11:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The first time I've seen YouTube video call for AfD participation. Truly, YouTube is the third superpower. =) (Which reminds me, I should make the "common WP newbie mistakes" video one day...) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I have struck my comment. Upon rereading, it came across a bit too bitey. AecisBrievenbus 21:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggest that the article in question be semi-PP'ed until the outcome. The edit history should bear out my reasoning... Yngvarr 12:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Elaborate, please? There doesn't seem to be any indication of repeated vandalism or editwarring that would justify semi-protection, in my opinion... but I didn't look that closely. Some people keep adding !votes to the article page instead of AfD proper, but that's not exactly a problem that justifies semi-protection. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep if notability means anything it means that people have noticed something and written about it in such a way that we can tell reliably that they have. That's been shown. Sure, it's by sources which aren't on our list, as which might not be reliable enough to document negative BLP concerns, but just as writing a best seller is notable regardless of the contents or merit or true value of the book, just like having a platinum record is notable regardless of its merits, evidence of very high viewing on youtube or of a blog is notable. I know it says notability is not popularity, but it many cases it is indeed popularity, such as those i've mentioned. If the most watch movies produced in Hollywood are notable, so are the most watched ones on youtube and the most watch blogs. Businesses are notable because of the market share, professors for writing widely used textbooks, politicians for attracting the most voters. There are cases, like athletics, where there is a competitive standard, but actually they are unusual. In a great many cases, we do consider popularity to be notability. If we pretend otherwise, lets give up the pretense. N is not policy, but a guideline, and intended to be flexible. The question of whether he is high enough in the rankings is a question beyond my ability to evaluate. the question of what sources are reliable for showing it, is also a reasonable one--I see no reason they should be anything like the conventional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
    • This list? Those are just examples, and is not comprehensive. Reliability (of a source) is highly subjective, because it goes to whether or not the source can be trusted for accuracy. And how is that verified? WP:VER says nothing about that, except that the source needs a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy". The Transhumanist (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Lrprice has proved the subject's notability above. The references he cited are reliable sources, and they establish notability. The Transhumanist 21:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

*Delete per nom, another YouTube loser who needs to get a real job. --Merovingian (T, C) 21:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, insufficient referencing and assertions of notability. --Merovingian (T, C) 22:38, 29 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 "delete" comments hinged on its apparent non-existence, as the subject has been proven to exist, the arguments for deletion have no substance. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KXLJ-TV

KXLJ-TV (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There is no record of a station with such call letters and designation within the Federal Communications Commission's database. There is also no record or source of this station being a CBS affiliate. Rollosmokes (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Speedy Delete - if there is no reliable source or record of it's existence, then delete by all means.--TrUCo9311 21:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can also find no evidence this exists. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Search harder, folks! [16] Yngvarr 21:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Search harder? FCC denies this call sign exists. That's good enough, frankly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I don't understand. When I search the FCC database with KXLJ, I get a record that matches. Yngvarr 22:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Guess that Nate got it. Doesn't appear to be a TV station. You have a link for the search results? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The search link is on my first comment. It matches the city and the broadcast method (the FCC database lets you search AM, FM, TV, etc) which is why I am surprised. Yngvarr 22:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, that's fascinating right there. =^^= Wonder if it's to be the HD broadcast, since it's UHF. You changed my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong possible speedy delete. Looks like the CBS affiliate is KTNL, according to this page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Going to go keep for now. The station exists, but the FCC search that Yng provided doesn't make affiliation clear - so it's possible that it's just a new station, like the KXLJ note below from nate. Needs more information here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete(see below) KXLJ (AM), a new radio station in Juneau exists, and it might be a CBS Radio affiliate, so I think it was just a mixup between radio and television. Nate • (chatter) 22:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Doubtful that it's a CBS affiliate - they're drawing a feed from Air America according to that article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Why would being owned by CBS Radio preclude them from broadcasting Air America? (See KPTK) -- RoninBK T C 00:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
        • They probably broadcast the hourly CBS newscast is what I was trying to say (they aren't owned by CBS, but would just take the network news). That can be a common arrangement; although AA does have an hourly newscast it is optional to take if they can get ABC or CBS Radio for their news. Nate • (chatter) 00:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete given that it doesn't exist. A new article should be created for the radio station with a bit more information than a one line stub. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to KTNL-TV, update that article further with findings here I think I'm beginning to see that this is a translator of KTNL which is CBS-TV; that article says that they have a Juneau translator on channel 24 as KTNL-LP, while the info on KXLJ-LP from the FCC also lists that station on channel 24, but KTNL's FCC page does not list any LP translators with the same calls. I'm thinking there's some informational conflicts here and the KTNL article needs to be updated with the proper channel 24 calls in Juneau. Note that the station has not updated their website for years so what may have been correct five years ago may not be today; I'm suspecting that they use the branding calls KTNL-LP on air and hide the real calls in tiny type when they have to identify on the hour. Nate • (chatter) 01:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Interesting deduction, but without some sort of proof of your theory it remains just that. -- RoninBK T C 03:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Yup, which is why it's so frustrating to deal with two stations with little to no web presence whatsoever. I'm adding this to the Alaska list to see if we can get some info. Nate • (chatter) 23:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Yngvarr's perfectly cromulent link demonstrating it exists. Pharmboy (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. —Nate • (chatter) 23:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to KXLJ-LP. This FCC application filed by the station shows that the station has been operating under special temporary authority (STA) from the FCC since October 4, 2001 as the CBS affiliate for Juneau. The STA currently allows the station to broadcast as a translator for KTNL-TV, while it is constructing facilities pursuant to a construction permit which took nearly five years for the FCC to approve (which it finally did on October 4, 2005). DHowell (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Linky no worky, HTTP404... -- RoninBK T C 12:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was keep no consensus to delete - default to keep. Canley (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC) (reworded after discussion --Canley (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Lingua Franca Nova

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

Non-notable and all sources are self-published. A mailing list and a wiki are not too convincing per WP:SPS. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment-well Im on both sides of this one, I find alot of pages on this subject in searches, so it doesnt fail WP:NOTABLE. Although, the sourcing is bad. Mayby a clean up and additional reliable sources and then it should be able to remain.TrUCo9311 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - certainly passes as notable, but could do with better referencing. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: How exactly does it pass as notable? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Recognized by ISO (this constitutes strong external scrutiny)hence notable. The cited sources are works of the creators of LNF hence authoritative. Rgds, w.dijkhuis 24 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.72.125.38 (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I'd like to see some documents about this "scrutiny". The committee that grants those ISO codes seems to be doing a pretty lousy job if they gave a code to a constructed language based on a request from its creator, which says that it is not recognized by anyone and that it is used in "email correspondence", without any more references. See for yourself: Google search for site:www.sil.org "lingua franca nova". This very short request was written by the language's creator, so it is also self-published per WP:SPS. This may sound like cruel bureaucracy, but actually it is just common sense. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Reply to comment. Here are some facts to supply a basis for this discussion. ISO does have standards, an earlier request to grant LFN an ISO code was denied (Google it). The new request was not only submitted by the creator of LFN, it was supported by about 10 other persons (Google it). The “self” you refer to is not “the” creator of LNF but a community of 30+ people that collectively worked at the LFN project for about 10 years (there are 3 or 4 generations of contributors). The result is a conlang that is widely known and appreciated in the wider conlang community. (Take the trouble to go to the auxlang yahoo group. Yesterday I counted 556 messages that referred to LFN and 465 that mentioned Lingua Franca Nova).The LFN corpus is not overwhelming but definitely noticeable – and I would claim: noticed - . LFN is (omni)present in lists of conlangs that are compiled by independent compilers of such lists. (go to the auxlang page of wikipedia, scroll to the bottom, there you will find Lingua Franca nova among the MOST notable conlangs – LFN is not just notable, it is most notable according to the judgment of the authors of that page). Yes, you are right, the modern conlang community does live and publish on the web, “respectable” references are hard to find. However, there is one initiative where this web based world strives to gain a foothold in the traditional academic sphere: the Language Creation Conferences, organized by Sai Emrys of Berkeley. Guess what, Sai votes KEEP (see below) – thanks Sai, keep up the good work. w.dijkhuis 25 january 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.72.125.38 (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
One tries. ;) But I don't expect to have any especial personal weight on Wikipedia; I'm just another editor who believes in WP:NNOT. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 20:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm not a strict inclusionist when it comes to auxlangs (in fact I nominated a page to be deleted two weeks ago, one on an Esperanto site that I didn't feel deserved its own page on Wikipedia) but LFN does deserve its own page and now has an ISO number and is also currently progressing quite well in its nomination for a Wikipedia. A year or two ago it might have been delete-worthy, not now. Mithridates (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - LFN has an ISO number, about 200 speakers, wiki articles in several languages, its own wiki with more than 1000 articles, a tutorial in five languages on wikibooks.... References are authoritative, and if "self-published" is a criterion for deletion, I have to wonder how many Esperanto books are published by advocates and their associated publishers? If Esperanto has more independent published articles to refer to, how many of those got all their information from one of those "self-published" sources? All technical informatin on conlangs ultimately derives from the originators themselves, so this would constitute a no-win situation. Only "old" conlangs need apply, and any innovation is essentially kept from the wiki public. Agricolaplenus (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment:
  • ISO number - see my comment above.
  • 200 speakers - find me a secondary source to prove that, see WP:PSTS.
  • wiki articles in several languages - this is a self-reference to a sister project, see WP:SELF.
  • its own wiki with more than 1000 articles - an open wiki is not a reliable source, see WP:SPS.
  • a tutorial in five languages on wikibooks - by now you should already guess that it is both WP:SELF and WP:SPS.
  • how many Esperanto books are published by advocates - quite a lot. But Esperanto is also covered by an enormous number of external sources, and with LFN it doesn't seem to be the case, until someone proves the opposite.
  • any innovation is essentially kept from the wiki public - yes, it is. This is called original research, see WP:NOR.
You see, all these policy pages with annoying bureaucratic acronyms seem like tools that help deletionists that want to destroy interesting articles that other people wrote, but actually they are there to show that all those discussions about notability, verifiability, quality and reliability of cited sources etc. have already been held numerous times and a consensus has been reached about them. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOTE is not a rule, it's a suggestion. One that not everyone agrees with. We are not bound to agree to this previous "consensus", and it is not part of Wikipedia *policy*. You have said nothing that actually claims the article is of poor quality, verifiability, or reliability for the *facts* that are claimed in the article. Remember, these aren't just pointless suggestions; they're there to try to achieve certain specific ends. Third party sources aren't always relevant, nor do they always make something better. That would imply that journalists ought to control what goes into encyclopedias... Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:NOTE is a rule: it has a big V on it, while WP:NNOT has a big X.
journalists ought to control what goes into encyclopedias - it's a sad fact that journalists often make things notable. Journalists didn't make LFN notable. Neither did anyone else. The ISO code is an extremely weak exception, as i explained above.
I am not saying that LFN is a bad conlang or that it doesn't have potential to become notable in the future. It just doesn't appear to be currently more notable then any of the other languages on LangMaker and similar sites. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
ORLY? Did you read the thing at the very top of it that says it's not a policy, just a guideline? Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 20:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per above and WP:NNOT. BTW, people here may also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ill Bethisad, nominated by same person for same reasons. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes, Journalists make things notable--but they are not the only way something can be notable, and their view of the wold is not the totality of importance for an encyclopedia. There is a fundamental dichotomy--the encyclopedia includes things that people want to know about not just for current interest but for general civilization. Any language with an iso code is notable.again, we're judging by an external source, but a more more relevant one for the purpose. DGG (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This language is notable - very well-known, ISO code etc. For the rest, see my comments below. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 08:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculous

Once upon a time, Wikipedia was a place to get information on all kinds of things. It was both an encyclopedia of basic information, a place to find out about things a bit more esoteric, and even a place to find trivia. For some reason, the powers-that-be decided it only wants to be an online Encyclopedia Britannica.

When I was a kid, interested in languages, I could get a few language books from my local library, but most languages were unavailable. Encyclopedia might have a paragraph or two, but nothing satisfying. One of the wonders of the net is that you can find detailed information on just about anything that sparks your intellect. And Wikipedia is - or was - the best source of all.

It's hard to find an article nowadays that doesn't have a "needs sources" or "inappropriate content" or "not up to standards" or other tag attached to it.

That said, I would like to know why a language like LFN, with hundreds of advocates and even (just recently) its own ISO code, is somehow of less interest than Esperanto or Ido or Novial. Or of less interest than sports figures and movie stars. Or of less interest than porn stars and sexual techniques?

Perhaps we should concentrate more on adding and improving what's already there, rather than tearing down other people's work.

Agricolaplenus (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia is getting more anal about things, but it's not too bad that there are lots of "citation needed"s all over the place; in fact, they are helpful in pointing out possibly untrue information. But to delete the article on LFN because all the material is self-published is silly. This is a constructed language, so of course its creator would know the most about it! Why is the work of the creator and speakers not valid? They are the only ones who can provide any information on the language! --Kinghajj (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It's creator knows the most about it, but if no-one else knows anything about it, then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. See my comments at the deletion discussion. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
What about the 200 people that speak, or at least read, the language? Besides, although one person began the creation, dozens of others improved it with their suggestions over the years, including more than doubling its vocabulary! I respect you, Amir, but this time, your action is baseless. --68.82.216.178 (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Possibly. I'd like to see proof, which is in line with Wikipedia policy on sources - WP:PSTS and WP:SPS.
(You forgot to log in. IJzeren Jan? Saizai? Someone else?) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
(That was not me.) As I mentioned in the other deletion discussion WP:NOTE is NOT A POLICY it's just a guideline that not everyone agrees with. Moreover, WP:PSTS, which IS a policy, clearly says that primary sources ARE allowable, and should just be treated with a certain amount of sanity. Saying that something does not have third party sources, yet not actually disagreeing with FACTUAL CLAIMS, is bullshit. Just think about it - how do you expect that journalists writing about it would find out the facts? Simple: they would read it up on the same primary sources that the articles cite, and talk to those same people. And then probably get it half wrong because they aren't linguists. So please stop claiming that WP:NOTE is a policy, and please stop misapplying guidelines without heed to the actual reasons for their existence and the ways in which articles can be improved... or cases where they simply do not need to have external sources because they're not claiming anything that violates WP:PSTS. Putting an article up for deletion simply because it's about something that primarily takes place online is, IMNSHO, both abusive and heedlessly destructive and does not improve the quality of Wikipedia. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 20:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't me either, but here I am, and I cannot say I disagree with Agricolaplenus and the anonymous contributor above. And with Sai, of course. Let's get this straight: conlangs are a field that by many people is considered "obscure"; interest in the field is not broad and therefore cannot count on lots of media coverage. In other words, you simply can't compare it to rock bands and the like. If we'd apply the same standards on conlangs that we apply on other fields of art, then we'd end up with articles about maybe ten conlangs, at best. Is that where we want to go? Apart from the fact that Notability is indeed a guideline and not a law carved in stone, why do people make such an issue of articles about subjects that are, say, somewhere in the grey area between notable and non-notable? Frankly, I'm not happy at all with the fact that virtually every page on Wikipedia.en has all kinds of ugly tags attached to it. Why would people waste their time adding those tags instead of just improving articles, or, for that matter, trying to eliminate other people's work instead of creating their own? I'm all for keeping Wikipedia clean of nonsense and completely irrelevant stuff, but for heaven's sake, is it really necessary to make so much fuss about doubtful cases? An article about a conlang created in 2007 with 14 Google hits and no coverage at all should of course be deleted; but LFN is obviously not such a case. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 08:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not one of the sources this article cites passes the policies in WP:V, which states that "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." The article currently cites, in order of appearance:
  1. A Lingua Franca Nova FAQ, apparently written by the language's creator, hosted on a personal website of the creator of the LFN wiki, Stefan Fisahn
  2. A glossary of LFN, self-published on the personal website of its author
  3. A pronunciation and spelling guide of unclear authorship, also hosted on Fisahn's website
  4. A page on Omniglot, self-published by its author
  5. The complete grammar of LFN, a page on Fisahn's LFN wiki.
  6. A list of prefixes and suffixes, also on Fisahn's wiki.
  7. Fisahn's LFN website, again
  8. A translation of a Cat Stevens song on Fisahn's wiki.

Even if this article were to pass AfD, these sources are still unacceptable for use in Wikipedia. Once these sources and all the information attributed to them are removed, what verifiable information will remain? Only the fact that the ISO assigned this language a number at the request of its creator, and nothing else. -- Schaefer (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I get this right. There are a number of conlangs that promote their virtues on the web. Lets take lojban, toki pona and LFN. Each of this conlangs has a thriving and productive community. Each reports it’s own achievements enthusiastically on the web. In your purist view they are not allowed to mention their existence on Wikipedia (that would constitute the cardinal sin of self-publishing). However if each would add on their websites a short message like: our conlang xxx is the best, but yyy and zzz are also quite nice, then all would be right, all three are endorsed by multiple external authorities. Your self-publishing problem would be solved? w.dijkhuis 25 jan 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.72.125.38 (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Stefan is essentially a publisher in this case: He likes lfn and has contributed, but is teaching his son esperanto. Omniglot is edited by Simon Ager, who does not simply put up what anyone sends him. The glossary referred to is not of lfn at all, but of the original Lingua Franca, and is published by Alan Corré (do your research!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.216.178 (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My friend Stefan Fisahn and I once talked about the relative virtues of anarchism and socialism. Stefan said that if each person is permitted the freedom to add his or her voice to community decisions, the community will run itself, without an authority structure. And he pointed to wikipedia as an example of how well anarchy can work. I countered by suggesting that in an anarchy, authoritarians will arise, make alliances with other authoritarians, and we will soon be in the same position - or worse. Well, I don't know who is right about politics, but I do think wikipedia has developed a rather obvious authoritarian system. Those of us coming into the system from the outside find ourselves faced with many rules and regulations about which we have no voice. A sad state, for something with so much promise. --Cgboeree (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

all formal and informal groups of people have their conventions and social practices. The group of people working here is a very large one--a larger number of people than have probably been working on any equivalent project ever. We/they are trying to find ways of making progress on a multifaceted project while accommodating each other. What is needed is tolerance of diversity, but we know that this tolerance has given opportunities to those who would pervert our goals to their own propagandistic or commercial purposes. the tension here is unavoidable, and i can only urge that, like other people entering a group, that you learn the customs so that you can change them. At least that is what I am trying to accomplish personally.DGG (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been reading some of the standards, and it appears very clear to me that the sourcing issue revolves around the problem of anecdotal sources and opinions. If you look at the lfn entry, you will find that there is no use of anecdotes, that there is no proselyting, no effort at self-promotion, only a straight-forward presentation of the facts about the language. Even the so-called claims about membership are easily checked by looking at the editing histories and the group emails. Agricolaplenus (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Mentioned in Switching Languages: Translingual Writers Reflect on Their Craft by Steven G. Kellman and Esperanto: Language, Literature, and Community by Pierre Janton. Wiwaxia (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's also mentioned in A Brief History of Globalization: The Untold Story of our Incredible Shrinking Planet by Alex MacGillivray: ". . . and more recently Lingua Franca Nova (1965) and Mondlango (2002)." It was verifiably invented in 1965 and people still care about it? Definitely a keeper! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiwaxia (talk • contribs) 08:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I can search Google Print, too. The coverage in these books is very trivial. LFN is only mentioned there. From WP:NOTE: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.. It may be "just a guideline", but it makes a lot of sense. If it is passingly mentioned in printed books, than i suppose that it can be passingly mentioned in other articles, with an external link to Boeree's site.
Let me reiterate it: I totally assume good faith about the people who want to keep this article, and i really do think that LFN is one of the loveliest conlangs that i encountered, yet i am still convinced that this is a language that can only be properly described by its inventor it and possibly by a community of supporters on the web, whose number and authority is questionable. Please don't take "questionable" as an insult: I am just saying that a mere count of user accounts on a wiki or a Yahoo group is not by itself a very good measurement of the size of the community. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The idea that a language be measured by the number of accounts on Yahoo.groups or Wikipedia itself is ridiculous. Do we count the number of Japanese speakers by the number of Japanese speakers that happen to have Yahoo.group or Wikipedia accounts? Also, I could most likely adequately describe Japanese and I am not a native speaker, so that is also a erroneous measurement of inclusion validity. --...or Sano (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC) aka Sano.


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

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 11:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mongol alliances in the Middle-East

Mongol alliances in the Middle-East (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page is yet another POV fork by PHG and represents a further attempt to avoid consensus discussion at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. Multiple editors have asked him to stop this behavior, and yet he keeps creating more POV forks. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franco-Mongol alliance (1258-1265) (which last also covers Franco-Mongol alliance (1265-1282) and Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304). Kafka Liz (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Though the article appears well-sourced, it is just more copy/paste information attempting to push a bias that the Mongols had a series of alliances. The article includes a long list of sources pasted from Franco-Mongol alliance, some of which have little or no information related to the new topic. It is disappointing that after several articles were AfDed yesterday, that PHG (talk · contribs) went and created another fork today, as this is very disruptive. We are requesting that all such POV forks be deleted, so that we can centralize discussions at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance and figure out what to do. --Elonka 20:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Could we just do a mass-delete of all these Franco-Mongol alliance forks? This topic is at most a footnote in history, and quite possibly a misreading of the sources, or even a hoax. Why are there so many Wikipedia articles when there are virtually zero verifiable references? Jehochman Talk 20:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only created 2 hours ago? This is ridiculous, I would have hoped PHG would have seen that there was a strong consensus that these forks were not acceptable. There is no need to have exactly the same information information under multiple titles. This is an especially a bad idea where the accuracy and neutrality of that information has been challenged. WjBscribe 20:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This hardly needs explanation now. This one is I am unhesitant to call a POV fork. Until controvery is settled, information need not be duplicated under various titles. Srnec (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is getting absurd. john k (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment Before this angry bunch obviously pissed off by the user inquestion gets theirs, I would ask them to clearly explain fork of exactly what this page is. To me it seems a valid overview page and not near the mentioned Franco-Mongol alliance beyond summary section, which may be edited (er.... I guess...). `'Míkka>t 22:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • P.S. "push a bias that the Mongols had a series of alliances." WTH? Are you saying that a series of wikipedia articles are all false? Also "This is getting absurd" is hardly a valid reason for deletion. `'Míkka>t 23:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No. The problem stems from a wide range of Mongol-alliance articles that one user has created. The reason for deletion is that the articles misrepresent sources and push original research. The user has been evading the consensus by creating multiple new articles whenever one gets deleted, or when his original research is removed. This looks like a big problem. Jehochman Talk 23:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Mikka, sorry about the lack of information, it's mainly because this problem has grown so large, that it's taking too much time to re-explain the case at each new AfD. It seems like each time we deal with one article, PHG creates a couple more.  :/ And we're not disputing all articles related to the Mongol Empire, we're simply disputing the "Mongol alliance" issue. For more info though, you may wish to review the thread at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Articles for deletion to see some of the other discussions that we are dealing with. You are welcome to join into discussions there, to help determine consensus. You may also find this useful to come up to speed on the POV dispute: User:Elonka/Mongol quickref. Best, --Elonka 23:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - lets see if there is a need for an article split AFTER the issue is resolved on the orignal page Franco-Mongol alliance. Let's try pruning the original article of unneeded information/quotes/etc to get it to a more manageable size first. Plus, keeping the dispute to one page makes it easier for others to follow the discussion, and have input. When the article is split into too many POV forks, some can slip through the cracks. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. AFD is not for content disputes; please use dispute resolution to discuss mergers and splitting of articles.Biophys (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I notice you left this vote and comment at the other AfD's as well. Please note that for the others the content is duplicated and so the AfD is not about content per se. This AfD is really about stopping the repetition of material whose accuracy and truthfulness is disputed. If I create an article with disptued content, I should not be allowed—before the disptue is finished—to repeat the disputed portion on many articles old or new. The content would be deleted in old articles. In this case we the community merely ask that it be deleted from a new article. If the whole purpose behind the article under consideration were not the spreading of a certain POV then I would merely vote to "Keep and delete duplicated disputed content", but it is the very idea of this article that spreads the disptued POV. The article, in a useful way, could be re-created later if the dispute settlement eventually reached allows for it. Srnec (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I know this is a rather arcane subject, but please just look at the sources. This article allows to explain the broad geopolitical structure of the Mongol alliances in the Middle East, and connects the various articles already put in place. It is not a repetition of content, as it rather puts into context the other materials and give many new sources related to the broad context of these alliances. It is perfectly legitimate and sourced. These diplomatic contacts and alliances are highly referenced in academic sources. By the way, I think I am through with creating new articles on this subject (broad picture/ each alliance/ template for navigation), so nobody has to worry about ever-spreading contibutions... and it should save unsubstanciated "POV-fork" accusations :). Regards PHG (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, merge back into main article until disputes are resolved. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Close as No consensus and Rewrite the entire series of articles This is not the way to handle editing disputes. There is apparently the simultaneous strategy of various people involved of trying to modify the articles, of trying to write additional ones, and simultaneous put them up for deletion. This is a confusing way to proceed. I would support anyone who wants to close this entire series of AfDs with a no-consensus, and a request to the parties to find a mediator. The question of whether the relationship was one of vassalage or alliance or occasional cooperation is not going to be settled by debating it at AfD--especially since the various parties at the time undoubtedly saw it very differently. Nor is the question of how to divide this extremely large subject with broad implications and a n enormous literature likely to find a consistent resolution from multiple AfDs. Closing them all with no consensus at this point is usually considered premature, but I think it would be justified as the only way likely to find a solution. If there could be a moratorium on the need to defend video, RPG, and other popular culture articles, and if we could agree on any sort of compromise solution at WP:FICTION and WP:EPISODE, I'd have time to give it a try as an informal mediator. I'd much rather work on history than on television series. DGG (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork on decidedly dodgy historical grounds •CHILLDOUBT• 18:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete merge back into main article, it does appear to be a pov fork.Bless sins (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I did not receive reasonable explanations how a general article of "Mongol alliances in the Middle-East" can be a POV fork of an individual item of "Franco-Mongol alliances". If there is a disputed piece, I don't see the problem to make it exist in one article by making wikilinks in other articles. There is a basic rule that a summary section in a general article (the discussed one) cannot have any text not included in the "Franco-Mongol" page defined as {{main}} for this section. This rule closes a possible loophole for a perceived fork. `'Míkka>t 19:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the article is that it's largely speculation. Material is being placed here from deleted articles or that was removed from other articles by consensus. Unfortunately, the impressive list of references is window dressing. The references frequently do not say what the article says. Jehochman Talk 19:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Mikka, though at some point it might be worth having an article on Mongol relations in the Middle-East, this article isn't it. The primary purpose of this article, as written, is as a WP:COATRACK to push the concept that the Mongols had multiple alliances, including with entities that, in actuality, they didn't have alliances with. For example, their relationship with the Franks was never an alliance, their relationship with Antioch wasn't an alliance, and their relationship with Armenia wasn't an alliance. Especially with Antioch and Armenia, the relationship was that of overlord-subject, meaning the target countries had surrendered, not allied. But this article is trying to push the POV that they were equal-party alliances, even though they weren't. The article is also being used to push an original research concept of a "North-South axis" and an "East-West axis", which to my knowledge are not discussed in any other work of history -- this "axis" angle is something that PHG came up with on his own, and is a clear violation of WP:NOR, the "novel interpretation" clause. PHG has been seeking to rewrite history in multiple articles on Wikipedia (at last count, he's been pushing false information into about 50 different articles, see Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review), and when he couldn't get the information pushed into existing articles, he was going around and creating entirely new articles to push his POV. Two have been deleted so far, and a half-dozen more are under AfD with a clear consensus to delete (though they haven't been closed yet). We've been discussing this at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, and the consensus was, and is, that we need to get rid of all these POV forks, and concentrate discussion in one place to figure out how to proceed with cleanup. So again, this "Mongol alliances in the Middle East" article is biased, it's a duplication of biased information elsewhere, it is not needed at this time, it just adds to existing confusion, and it should be deleted. --Elonka 20:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Elonka, I quite understand the possibility you are talking about. However I don't see nomination for deletion of articles Byzantine-Mongol alliance, Armeno-Mongol alliance, etc. As long as these article exist, the discussed one is a valid summary, regardless the quality/quantity of references (which, quite frankly I am not even taking into the consideration now). If you are saying that the terminology "North-South axis" is OR, remove it from the texts in question (the term "axis" means operating multi-sided treaties, not just a bunch of geographically sorted treaties; that I may see). `'Míkka>t 20:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Check the references please. Reliable sources don't say what the article says. Jehochman Talk 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Mikka, thanks for keeping an open mind.  :) And you're right, the Byzantine-Mongol alliance is probably salvageable. Armeno-Mongol alliance is probably going to get deleted/merged eventually, but since it's in more of a grey area, it's being left alone for now, as we decided to go with the low-hanging fruit of articles that needed immediate deletion. Remember, we're fighting a multi-front war here, with biased information in about 50 articles, so we're having to prioritize cleanup efforts. My guess (and this is just a guess) is that the way things will go after we get a handle on things, is that the Franco-Mongol alliance article will be renamed as "Crusader-Mongol relations" and will then incorporate any necessary information about Middle East diplomacy, including Armenian relations, and a link to the Byzantine article. But that still leaves us with this "Mongol alliances in the Middle-East" article, which is still inappropriate, and should go away. It's biased, it's OR, and it's disruptive to even have it around. If consensus exists in the future to re-create it (which I highly doubt), it can be re-created easily enough, but right now it's just adding to confusion. Nobody wants it, except for PHG. And the really irritating thing is that after we'd expressed concerns, after we'd told him to stop with POV forks, after we'd submitted multiple AfDs on the other articles, what did he do? He went and made this "Mongol alliances in the Middle East" article, within hours. That's why there are so many angry voices at the top of this AfD, and why people came tumbling in rapidly, is because the creation of this article was clearly disruptive. It wasn't created as thoughtful scholarship, it was mainly just a copy/paste of POV information. Just take a look at the long list of sources on the article -- most of them have nothing to do with it, they're just copy/pasted from the Franco-Mongol alliance article.[17] So as soon as PHG created it, we got it tagged as disputed within a half-hour, and sent it to AfD within an hour or two after that. If PHG makes any other POV forks, we're going to tag and nom those too, because he has to start working with consensus, instead of against it. --Elonka 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
DGG wrote: "I think I am through with creating new articles on this subject" so I think y'all may calm down a bit and figure out whether we are talking about POV of a wikipedian or POV of some historians. Unfortunately I have no resources to look into the matter seriously, but on the first glance the article is substantiated thoroughly not only by references, but by quotations (some of them do use the word "axis" in kinda informal sense). I am aware that there still may be WP:SYNTH issues, but I would suggest to consider salvaging this article. It is a widespread image of Mongols as ruthless conquerers, but they were also cunning politicians as well, so I see nothing unusual that they made various alliances/treaties (btw, may be the latter word may be better to describe their political relations), especially when their drive westwards halted. `'Míkka>t 01:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is well sourced and well deserving of further expansion. Given the abundance of scholalry material regarding the subject I also don't think it's an arcane subject just not one that has been given proper attention in Wikipedia until recently. Many articles have cross refrenced material, I fail to see how that's a cause for deletion.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Note to closing admin: FYI, the above user is under ArbCom sanctions for disruptive behavior in this topic area. See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. --Elonka 00:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • a)This "notice" is plain and simply harassment. I don't see how Elonka's ad hominem attack has any baring on my vote. b)That is a lie and irrelevant as i'm merely under revert limitation along with a dozen or so other users on certain topics which this one barely touches and arguably is not within its scope. -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 00:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks pretty damn thorough already. I think that anybody in the Wikipedia community who ever had an opinion about Mongol alliances in the Middle East... has made a comment. Mandsford (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sami Hashmi

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

I put this up for AfD before and it generated a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Local government. The consensus of which was that being a London Borough councillor was not notable unless there was something else. I've since tidied the article and added references, and the article really isn't up to much. He's just not notable as per WP:BIO#Politicians, so now the outcomes debate is over I'm relisting. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete-per nom.--TrUCo9311 21:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete-per nom, as he fails notability crietria. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete local councillors are seldom notable enough to meet WP:BIO#Politicians criteria, and I can see nothing in this article to indicate otherwise. RMHED (talk) 22:03, 28 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 04:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wilderness Survival

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

Should be deleted in accordance with the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (music). 0kdal (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep I added to this page cause I love their music I heard it on 91x in san diego and read a review of their first cd in a best of local music issue in 2005. they're on itunes, great band, have had numerous reviews in national mag's, friend of mine heard their music on a commercial. google 'em —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rooski (talk • contribs) 06:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC) — Rooski (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC as no notability is asserted whatsoever through third-party sources. --DachannienTalkContrib 08:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

this source has been sited http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/wilderness-survival/we-were-21-in-03.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.56.188 (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

One review in an online magazine is not sufficient to establish notability. --DachannienTalkContrib 21:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dachannien. Fails WP:MUSIC. Redfarmer (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sources to indicate notability per WP:BAND. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete-per nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No label, no evidence of publication. Some airtime on 91X is great and all, but not evidence of notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:34, 23 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roach Motel (computing)

Roach Motel (computing) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This seems to be a non notable neologism Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I can't find much use of it these senses. JohnCD (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This article was broken off from Roach Motel to make the subject more coherent. Jon513 (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jon513. The original article Roach Motel was written very incoherently when I came across it today. It was a single page describing three meanings of the term "Roach Motel," each with one or more pararaphs devoted to one of these meanings. They were also written quite incoherently. This is not a normal convention for writing Wikipedia articles. In response, I made a separate page for each of the two meanings with longer definitions. Since these articles were short, I marked them as stubs, in hopes of future expansion. I made the page Roach Motel into a disamiguation page, defining the third term at the top (this is common on Wikipedia). I am presently researching these topics myself, but I do not know what useful information I can contribute to these.Shaliya waya (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is a long history to this term dating back to the earliest version of Oracle Database. It's been applied to Portable Document Format and numerous other proprietary formats, and most recently to Facebook by Robert Scoble, representing a serious criticism rather than just a one-time ha ha only serious joke. --Dhartung | Talk 08:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but really needs sources. Hobit (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No sources whatsoever. How can anyone know that it has a long history & is not a trivial joke?DGG (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: When I split the original Roach Motel article, which I found by opening a random article, I did not change the information in the article. I only moved around the existing paragraphs to conform with Wikipedia's conventions, and this involved creating some new pages. I noticed there were no sources, and there was an {{unreferenced}} tag, but I am not an expert on this topic, and I don't know where to find them. I did a Google search, and of all the three meanings the original article has, the product seems to have the most notability. For now, I believe it would be best to place an {{unreferenced}} tag on this page, and if no further sources can be found, it be renominated.Shaliya waya (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as clearly not notable. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V and who knows what else. Probably a valid speedy delete as A7 and maybe A3. The other option is to combine under a pseudo dab page. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As it stands it doesn't even seem to be verifiable, let alone notable. RMHED (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - as others say, not at all verifiable. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:47, 28 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 an yet to be determined article, if you think you found a proper article for redirection, please boldly do so. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Urban magic

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

Complete OR. I'm finding plenty of Ghits for the term, but all in relation to paganism, not books. Seems like the editor is trying to coin their own phrase. Redfarmer (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'm in agreement, this sounds like something that the author made up one day to put a name to such novels. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. While one could make the argument that the few novels mentioned have a similarity of setting and genre, that's a far cry from it being a recognized subgenre of fantasy. It seems that the best definition that's been added so far is, "Like fantasy, but urban and with magic". Also, the article namechecks urban fiction as part of an attempt to assign relevance to itself; unfortunately, urban fiction has little to do with a geographical setting and a lot to do with the class and ethnicity of the characters (which aren't relevant to any of the Gaiman books, at least). I agree that the author of the article is trying to cobble together a term; just because no overarching name exists for the works mentioned doesn't mean its Wikipedia's job to coin one, though. Ig8887 (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Contemporary fantasy, the established term. Urban fantasy is listed as a subgenre and would be a more exact redirection target, but I have lingering doubts about the WP:OR/WP:NEO state of the latter. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to either Contemporary fantasy or Urban fantasy, with a slight preference for the latter. I agree with the doubts of Serpent's Choice's about UF, but this would be a good opportunity to clean up and source that article. Goochelaar (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect I agree that Contemporary fantasy or Urban fantasy would be appropriate. I read a lot of these books, but have never heard this particular term applied by any bookstore or publisher. Slavlin (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm uncomfortable with redirection, especially if this is WP:OR or WP:HOAX. If the creator created this term themselves one day, it doesn't deserve a redirect. I would be able to WP:AGF more if I hadn't already seen other articles by this editor in WP:AfD and WP:SPEEDY. Redfarmer (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Given the nominator's GHit research, I've left a note on Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism to see if any of them have any input on a more appropriate redirect target, or even a more appropriate article -- RoninBK T C 00:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect. It's a very brief, unsourced bit of fluff defining someone's pet name for one author's books (two authors are listed but I have strong suspicions the other was added to make it seem legitimate). Also, redirects are cheap - it's hardly an innovative name, and a lot of people might come up with it in school one day, so we may as well point them in the right direction. Kuronue | Talk 02:15, 24 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 04:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TeenSpot

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

Article is written more like an advertisement, and does not "describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." Barely asserts any notability, aside from listing sourced traffic stats. Also has only trivial mentions in articles, often just listing the site along with other social networks. -- pb30<talk> 18:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Also nominating:

2005 TS Top 100 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Keep It has a mention on Dateline and a controversy with another site, I think it could show merit. Let this AfD stand as a warning to the articles editors, if it's in the same shape in a month I don't think it'll survive another AfD. Padillah (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:WEB requires far more than a mention, it requires significant coverage. A controversy with another site means nothing unless that has been covered in significant detail by a reliable source.--Crossmr (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
That goes for both articles, by the way - the second nom could probably be deleted per WP:SPEEDY (A7). --DachannienTalkContrib 09:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It has been mentioned on Dateline NBC and ITN News, and is linked to by a number of articles for albums by bands. If the editors of those articles think the site's review is notable, I think then the site itself must have some notoriety. It could definitely use some rewrite and editing on its bulk description/list section. When making the article, I was hoping that someone with more editing experience would have taken the reigns on making the article's content more encyclopedic. Smeggysmeg (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • A recent edit should alleviate some of your concerns regarding its style. Smeggysmeg (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This dateline "mention" is just that a mention. WP:WEB requires significant coverage. Other wikipedian editors can't establish notability. the guidelines are very clear on what establishes notability and I don't see any of it here.--Crossmr (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This article should be kept because the website has a large user base, and becuase it is part of many ongoing controversies regarding child safety online. I don't see how it is any less relevant than the article on Myspace or Bebo. Bms0076 (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

2005 TS Top 100

  • Delete Insignificant forum glory. Smeggysmeg (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note My opinion that this second article should be deleted was registered above, but I'm re-mentioning it here for clarity's sake. --DachannienTalkContrib 22:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Lack of notability per mentioned above. Earthbendingmaster 01:23, 24 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. Secret account 01:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leo J. Meyer

Leo J. Meyer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This man was a United States Army officer during World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. This very long article, likely created and principally authored by a relative, is more a life story than a biographical encyclopedia entry. The problem is that unless I've missed something, there's no notability in it. The external links/external sources provide no information about Meyer specifically, only about the groups in which he served/commanded and a Smithsonian folklife exhibition. There's a claim that some of his scrimshaw work was featured in a book, but the title and/or ISBN of the book isn't listed for verification.

If all Bronze Star, Distinguished Service Medal, and other combat award/medal recipients other than the Medal of Honor are notable simply by receiving those decorations – and I don't believe that's the case – I can reach no other conclusion than the article should be deleted. KrakatoaKatie 22:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Meyer's main claim to fame is for having been recognized by a military museum as one of only 303 to have won threeCombat Infantryman Badges. He won one in WW2, one in Korea, and one in Vietnam.That said I would like to see some details about what his actual military and combat experiences were in each of the wars: how was he in combat? Or was being in theater sufficient? The article on the badge implies actual combat. Few were in that role over such a long period.Edison (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless independent source can be found that shows specific interest in this individual (i.e. not just a name on a list). CitiCat ♫ 00:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although an accomplished and even distinguished military man, does not appear to have a particular claim to notability. Even the one thing Edison is saying is unique is shared by three hundred others. As for whether "few" were field-promoted looeys who became colonels in Vietnam, I expect that quite a few of the senior field officers in Vietnam had similar careers. --Dhartung | Talk 00:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Sigh, I really hate to do it (despite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:POKEMON) but, if we have room for hundreds of Pokemon characters, hundreds of cartoon episodes, and hundreds of random songs by garage bands, we have room for 303 men who were triple winners of the Combat Infantryman Badge and who were recognized by a military museum for that accomplishment with a marker and a ceremony. Thus three isn't an arbitrary number (as in what about four time or two time winners).Edison (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete We have room for them, sure, but there is nothing specifically notable asserted. I see no reason to regard it as a significant award demonstrating notabilty.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unfortunately, I also find no evidence to indicate notability criteria have been satisfied. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - I read this article, and I note what other editors say: "there's nothing notable about him." In one single incident, I think that's true - there's no VC or Medal of Honor, etc. But its the accumulation of medals across three wars (ie - multiple significant occurances) which I think means that Meyer easily passes WP:BIO if you read it fully. Are we saying that 16 independent references doesn't make "multiple independent sources"? And further that the award of 40 medals across 20 promotions doesn't satisfy the additional criteria of "significant recognized awards or honors" or a "widely recognized contribution"? There may not be a single book or a great GHit reference that says he is significant (remember, he came out of the army in 1969 - served another three years in intelligence which is unlikely to be referenced), but across 16 references his record proves WP:BIO. This is one article which, if we are an encyclopaedia and follow WP:5P, then this is the type of encyclopaedic content we should be striving to create and keep - its not original research, its well referenced, its not indiscriminate: and as a result it is encyclopaedic. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was no consensus for deletion. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Li style Tai Chi Chuan

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Li style Tai Chi Chuan
Li style Tai Chi Chuan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A primary source driven article, prodded once unsuccessfully, which ends up being an unverifiable advertisement. It has been tagged for a while as such, with no cites forthcoming. The question I propose is, is it a keeper without any reliable sources? Bradeos Graphon (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: This AfD was malformed in the formatting so I've corrected it and relisted it after deleting the malformed request. Redfarmer (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep this is a style of tai chi practised by several clubs in Britain and continental Europe which was introduced from China decades ago and is now overseen by a number of competing associations (which makes the advert claim illogical: who is advertising?). This style of tai chi does exist. The article could be improved although there is no evidence that it is misleading, there is merely an absence of citations. There is no case for deletion. Man with two legs (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't think the nominator is asserting that the style does not exist. I think they are asserting there's not enough sources to verify the notability of the style. Redfarmer (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge - probably doesn't deserve an article on its own, but should be included, maybe in the main Tai Chi article. As a former Tai Chi practicioner, a quick scan of the article didn't show many things that are so unique that they can't be included in a short paragraph within a larger article. --Arcanios (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability (and accuracy) of this style isn't verified by reliable secondary sources. If no coverage from reliable sources exists, then there can be no article. VanTucky 02:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have now added links showing some official recognition of this style. Man with two legs (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Also, I question if the point about reliability of sources is correct. As I have stated in the discussion page, the books were not written by existing practitioners of this style, and were published by Harper Collins. Man with two legs (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If there are some good secondary sources provided (or even one, I suppose) I'd like to ask if the closing admin to consider that as a factor in the keep decision. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 20:07, 27 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 into Jackson_Heights,_Queens#Education. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of schools in Jackson Heights

List of schools in Jackson Heights (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page is not really a list of schools although it mentions some. It's more like an essay and is not very encyclopedic. I see why no reason schools should be listed unles they are notable, and then they could go on the Jackson Heights, Queens page. MSGJ (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge to Jackson Heights, Queens#Education. The standard for lists of schools has been to list them in the school district or the town article. No reason why this one should be any different.--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The information that looks verifiable is already in the main article. Nothing here that needs to be saved. CitiCat ♫ 00:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As school districts do not apply in the usual sense in NYC, this sort of article is the equivalent. DGG (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe you could clarify what you mean by the usual sense, as there are districts in NYC. Most of Jackson Heights is in district 30. CitiCat ♫ 04:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 20:39, 23 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. Although by simple count, the comments are only slightly in favour of keeping, I find the arguments that the subject has pioneered a notable area persuasive of meeting WP:PROF, while the third party articles cited are adequate for verifiability. The several delete arguments that hinge around coatracking, original research or pseudoscience do not seem well founded. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Tajmar

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

Not a notable personage per WP:PROF. Looks like soapboxing and coatracks for fringe theories as well. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Notable, mentioned in New Scientist and by ESA for finding an anamoly. The article should state that verifications are uncertain. The article already helped me figure out the state of the issue and helped me figure out that a lot of people were stupid because they thought he made a gravitation field. Well sourced article, and gives depth that other articles can't give. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep According to web of science, 23 articles , but none cited morethan nine times. (Tajmar M, Wang J "Three-dimensional numerical simulation of field-emission-electric-propulsion neutralization" JOURNAL OF PROPULSION AND POWER 16 (3): 536-544 MAY-JUN 2000 Times Cited: 9) Clearly not yet notable as a scientist. Probably not certain whether he might be as an engineer.DGG (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The nominator is incorrect on both counts. 1. As the discoverer of a new effect, the subject easily meets criterion 5 of WP:PROF, and the effect has been discussed and researched by independent researchers (e.g. the U. of Canterbury group). 2. However closely I read the article, I fail to see any evidence of "fringe" science--this is a reputable mainstream scientist doing grant-funded research for a respectable international body (the ESA). It seems like the nominator strung together several loaded phrases ("coatracking", "fringe theory", etc.) without really understanding what they refer to. There is no evidence of coatracking, etc. within the article. Freederick (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    First of all, characterizing this person as a discoverer of a new effect is really reaching. Where's his prominence? Where are the accolades for his amazing discovery? Where's the Nobel Prize? Now, it may turn out this guy's on to something (I doubt it, but I'll keep an open mind). However, he hasn't been very convincing yet. No one except the increasingly disappointing New Scientist seems to take notice. Secondly, ESA gave him a grant. So what? Space agencies have wide latitude to give grants to all kinds of people and they frequently do. If we had an article on every person who received a grant from a space agency, WP:PROF would be thrown out the window! Also, whenever Heim theory gets mentioned red flags need to be raised high. I think a lot of the chacterizations being made by Freederick are pretty far off the mark. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Not all advances in science are "amazing" and end up on the evening news. Are you actually so naive as to think that public accolades are the touchstone of a scientific discovery, or are you just putting a spin on things? Also, I don't understand your remarks about Heim theory. Would you care to elaborate? Freederick (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Heim theory has been criticized as pseudoscience. Public accolades are part of what can conceivably make someone notable who is a (pseudo)scientist. Likewise, scientific recognition. However, this person has received neither. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
1. You do realize that "has been criticized" is a classic example of weasel wording, right?
2. The article on Heim theory has been through several AfD's itself, with a Keep result.
3. Heim theory gets one mention at the bottom of the Tajmar article. If it's HT that you have a quarrel with, I won't object if you remove that mention, and leave the Tajmar article out of it. AFAIK, Tajmar's research is not grounded in HT, and the claimed connection is tenuous at best. Freederick (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Update: I removed the sentence linking to HT from the article. Freederick (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails notability since no biographical sources are presented that discuss Martin Tajmar, the subject of the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • comment Biographical sources? Gimme a break. This is a scientist, not a pop star: his academic work is what is relevant, and that is referenced in the article. WP:PROF applies, rather than WP:BIO. But even WP:BIO says nothing about "biographical" sources being necessary. On the contrary, it says: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Sort of fits the bill, doesn't it? Freederick (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • When I say "biographical" I mean independent sources that discuss him as a person and assess his personal accomplishments relative to that of other scientists. His academic papers themselves do not establish notability, we need sources that were written by somebody else. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Relistsed to generate consensus ScienceApologist (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This had already been closed but been relisted by the nominator with the original closer's consent. I just corrected the log. Tikiwont (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Coatrack, not a professor. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability for a biographical article not established. Consider mention on Frame-dragging. People who write a notable paper get their paper cited on Wikipedia, they do not automatically get a full biography. dab (𒁳) 20:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep - seems on the edge of notability for keeping, so I usually recomment to keep. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep He has written a textbook published by an academic press, published many articles in highly reputable journals. Anthon01 (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Content may or may not be notable, but subject himself seems to fairly clearly fail to meet the standards of personal notability. Sourced, notable content could perhaps be placed in a different article. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The subject of the article himself does not appear to be notable. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Many independent sources are given to show that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources, especially with regards to the New Scientist article. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I never heard of this and have no opinion, but I found two bits of information.
1. Deutschlandfunk (if you are in the US, it's like NPR) visited his laboratory in November 2006. What he said sounds impressive, and the way he said it does not sound like the usual fringe stuff to me. (I only read the transcript.) Here is a translation of something he says:
"If someone finds that there is another translation for my effect, it's all right with me as well. Now I don't insist that I have created a gravitation field. I think it's the most likely explanation. If it's something else, then it's something else. In any case: I don't think that so far anybody has done something else where a laser gyro thinks it's rotating even though it's firmly attached to the ceiling. Now that's at least a curiosity that is worth being examined further."
2. I am unfamiliar with the German language Wikipedia, and it seems to be a few years behind. In any case I found a relevant discussion (in German) there in the physics project, in which people were very critical of Martin Tajmar. I have invited Ben-Oni to take part in this discussion. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • comment On the grounds of notability, the article about the person has more significance, IMO, if he is the sole source for something else which is notable. So maybe the guy has only done one thing, but if that thing is notable enough for an article, then an item for it's author makes sense to me. That said, I agree with Hans that more could be done to assess the notability of the item (an apparent electromagnetically induced gravitational effect?) itself. There is honest work being done in Unification; so I'll drop a note at the Lisi talk page, where all the bravest mathematical physicists hang out, and some cowardly mathematicians lurk :-) Pete St.John (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Note that this work does not involve unification, or any electromagnetic connection to gravitation. The theory is only formulated using gravitomagnetism which is a convenient set of formal analogies between electromagnetism and gravitation. It aims to explain observations of the mass of paired electrons in a particular superconductor, the physics of the electrical properties of electrons and superconductors does not really enter into it. The theory was really quite a long shot, and the evidence seems to show it incorrect. Still, correctness is not a criteria for a theory being in wikipedia, only notability. Rgraham_nz (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Just passes over the threshold, I'd say, based on whats there now and the analysis here. Since he's that close, which is enough to be a minor, quiet article, there is no reason to assume it won't simply expand further. Or stay this size. Either way is fine, but deletion would be premature. Lawrence § t/e 00:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:PROF, greater than average prof. Philosophically, I support academics somewhat notable in their field, however narrow their field is. Tparameter (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Added comment. It sounds like ScienceApologist thinks the guy is a kook. I could defer to his expertise if a case is made that this is a fringe loon or something, then change my vote. I'm not familiar with the guy's work. Tparameter (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Uncertain The article is very poorly sourced, but if better sources exist and can be added, I have no real problem with it. Adam Cuerden talk 06:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The name has got some recognition by good PR, e.g. by his attempts to let his fringe research appear more linked to ESA than it was. Judging by the usual standard in academics and physics, he clearly doesn't take the notability threshold. Borderline case, tending to delete, to not honour this sort of making oneself appear more important. --Pjacobi (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • comment While this discussion is going on, PouponOnToast has been repeatedly blanking large portions of the page in question, including the references section some relevant references. He has persisted in this borderline vandalism despite being asked to refrain until the AfD is closed. While such actions would be obnoxious enough under ordinary circumstances, they are particularly pernicious while an AfD is in progress. Please desist. Freederick (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • comment My goal is to remove the coatrack from the article, nothing more. I have not blanked the references section. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I do not believe that the section in question qualifies as a coatrack according to wikipedias guidelines. It presents a non-biased overview of his research and does not mislead the reader. That a large fraction of the content of the page relates to this particular work does not constitute a coatrack. In my opinion replacing the section with simply the comment 'The effect has not yet been observed independently' is very misleading to the reader since the effect (at least according to his original theory) has been shown to not exist by an independent group and this has been accepted for publication in a peer review journal.

    I have followed this research and read the relevant papers; while the evidence does not support this theory it is still legitimate science and should be retained by wikipedia. However it may be that this (biography) page is not the best place for the details of his work, I propose either:
  1. The content relating to gravitomagnetism and superconductors be restored
  2. The content be moved to a separate page, just about this theory


   My opinion is that the first option is the best option at this time ... if other researches become significantly involved in this research at a later time then the second option may be best. Please post your opinion. Rgraham_nz (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Pending more sources and per Wikipedia:PROF. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I do not think he is a kook (well, no more than is the norm for Breakthrough Propulsion), but he is not even close to meeting WP:PROF. There are an almost limitless number of people with tweaks to BCS or GR or whatever, WP:BALL says we wait until one of them generates significant independent coverage for being right or they become notable for some other reason. Eldereft (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - reasonable to include this sort of thing, people will likely be searching for details. MilesAgain (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment although the article should make it clear that the data has been not confirmed, and the theory not accepted. This is one ofthe exceptional cases where proposing something that turns out to be wrong is still notable. DGG (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC).

  • Delete non-notable even for psuedoscience. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:PROF, article seems to be about his alleged discovery, rather than about him, material might be appropriate under some other title. But as written the article isn't a biography. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, original research. He may have been mentioned in magazine on science, but so are a lot of non-notable fringe theorists. The article as it is, is ridiculously technical and invokes concepts that aren't explained on outside articles, making it unencyclopedic, since an encyclopedia is designed for a general audience -- which isn't going to be the same, for instance, as the same audience that might read magazines on science. And significance in academia does not equate with encyclopedic notability. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - his research was sufficiently notable that another group ran their own test of his theory. The article content appears to be verifiable. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I find the debate here amusing, especially the folks who call research in this area pseudoscience. But then again, you might be right. The folks at Skunkworks are known for their lack of intelligence. Tajmar's work is groundbreaking, and he is running into the same institutionalized resistance that others like him have in the past. That is the only reason some of you would like to delete his entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csm2 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE - All keep votes were made by socks of User:Yaktail. Chris 07:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beerluck

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

Unreferenced article that appears to be completely non-notable. Quite possibly made up, and clearly unencyclopedic. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as something made up one day. No sources of any kind to assert notability. DarkAudit (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MADEUP. Only about 580 googlehits and most are either blogs or not in english .--Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very few hits on Google, nothing even close to a reliable source to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Do NOT delete. Etymological rules based on pre-existing usage would have preempted a vast majority of words now seen in common usage or idioms (i.e. Rule of Thumb) from entering the English language. While we must consider the negative influence of Recentism, as someone who has attended a beerluck, I can testify to their existence. --ashwin User:ashwinsodhi User blocked as sock --Chris 02:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient. Wikipedia requires reliable, verifiable sources independent of the subject. None of that is here, or appears to be forthcoming. DarkAudit (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. Nakon 22:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete There are reasons that it is not common practice for people to sample a wide variety of beers. Back in 1995, my friends and I had a "beers of the world" party with six six-packs of beers, and it's like drinking different liquors. Instead of Tubthumping, the result is everybody getting sick the next day. At best, this is a variation on BYOB. Mandsford (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC) BTW, What do you call a party where there are different varieties of cannabis? Mandsford (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Please read WP:RS. Blogs and personal webpages aren't enough to satisfy WP:N or WP:RS --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 06:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment "I've been to one" doesn't mean squat when it comes to Wikipedia guidelines. "Some dude's blog" is not a reliable, verifiable, and independent source. DarkAudit (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete Regardless of Mandsford et al.'s wimpiness, it is a human rights outrage that Wiki would delete such a benevolent and articulate article. Beerluck's have been around since the origination of beer; do not be persuaded by the fact that this cannot be etymologically verified. If etymological root-laws held true, we would have no new or interesting variations of our language. No 'w00t'. Carl Sagan wouldn't even be accepted as a common noun (How messed up would that be?) Beerluck actually appeared in Book VI of Plato's Republic (par. 511): "The beginning of the beerluck is the most important part of the work." Rather than insist upon a proto-fascist and fiercely anti-intellectual modality of language, why don't we begin to tarry with freedom a little bit more? The freedom to potluck. kylenstone (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2008 — kylenstone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User blocked as sock --Chris 02:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You must understand, Kylen-- my stomach was wimpy, not I. I fearlessly did original research (back in 1995, we referred to it as "sedation needed") but either the mixture of the non-notable beers (or lack of verifiable sources) resulted in a deletion of the stomach contents. Mandsford (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. None of that is relevant. All articles in Wikipedia must establish notability using reliable, independent sources. This article doesn't have a single source or even claim notability. Calling it "proto-fascist and fiercely anti-intellectual" to delete an article that clearly doesn't belong in Wikipedia is ridiculous. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yaktail. It is a sockpuppetry case I started about all these single-purpose accounts in this AfD, who I believe are all connected. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Despite the very passionate appeals above, non of them address the deletion concerns. Delete. Pastordavid (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete per WP:Boosh!. I deeply resent being accused of sock-puppetry .--pmatarese —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmatarese (talk • contribs) 00:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC) User blocked as sock --Chris 02:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete utter made up nonsense. RMHED (talk) 22:12, 28 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. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Killed in action (band)

Killed in action (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Conested WP:SPEEDY so I thought I'd bring it here. Non-notable per WP:BAND and violation of WP:COI. Also, author asserts significance under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Redfarmer (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Les Paul Special-II

Les Paul Special-II (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete contested prod; article about a specific model of guitar without any indication why this particular model is notable, no significant coverage by 3rd party RSes (WP:N) and with features & pricing smells a little spammy to boot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Speedy Delete per G11. TalkIslander 22:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glamforless

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

I don't believe the subject is notable enough. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 20:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as spam. This is not an article, this is an ad. DarkAudit (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete obvious db-spam.--Pmedema (talk) 22:31, 23 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 nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ruth Fowler (Writer)

Ruth Fowler (Writer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A mess of links and non-sourced material. Speedy removed saying this "asserts notability" (I don't see it), and later removed by anonymous user (most likely logged-out author). JuJube (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Article was created 10 days ago, still no clear assertion of varifiable notability nor a properly formatted reference. SWik78 (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - there are several reliable sources cited to establish notability and provide material for an encyclopedia article, like a whole article about her in the New York Times. Who cares if they are properly formatted? That is solved by formatting the references and improving the article, not deleting it. — brighterorange (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • So fix it. JuJube (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • So you see the notability and think the article should be kept and fixed? It's rather thankless and risky to fix an article when it's on AfD with two delete opinions. — brighterorange (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
        • There's been plenty of AfDs that have turned around because one user put it upon him or herself to make the article presentable. I would not argue against a good article being kept. JuJube (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Fine, I spent 40 minutes cleaning this up into a proper stub. Please let this not be a waste of my time. — brighterorange (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - First of all, great job cleaning up the article Brighterorange. It looks a million times better. However, having read all of the external links, I can still only gather that she is a stripper with an education who has her own blog. The New York Times article really does nothing more than showcase a night in the life of a stripper. I still don't see notability worthy of a Wikipedia article. SWik78 (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:N says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Is this coverage not reliable, significant, or independent? She is also the author of a book to be published by Penguin. — brighterorange (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Per WP:TABLOID: Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. I would say that at least The Sun and the Village Voice could be disqualified as reliable since they are both tabloid-type publications. SWik78 (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, obviously the Village Voice article doesn't count because it is written by the subject of the article. It is used only as the source for the fact that she wrote that article (and a helpful link in case the reader wants to read it). I agree that The Sun is basically a tabloid. But are you saying that the Times article is not reliable? Or the Morning Call, or Wales on Sunday? (There are more out there, too...) I think these clearly qualify the article by WP:N. — brighterorange (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not saying that NY Times is not a reliable source. I'm saying that the particular article in the Times about the subject, in my opinion, doesn't do anything to assert her notability. Lots of people get written about in the Times that don't deserve a Wikipedia article. I think she is one of those people. SWik78 (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
        • In doing so you disagree with WP:N, which says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Is this correct? If you look at the bullet points there, it meets each one of them neatly. It is of course your prerogative to disagree with guidelines, but WP:N does not say that the Times article needs to "assert notability" (that phrase comes from CSD A7, not WP:N). — brighterorange (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I am not disagreeing with the policy but I think it's possible that you and I are not interpreting the policy in the same fashion which is fine. I think we've both said what we had to say on this topic. Let's get some input from other users. SWik78 (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Can you please explain how you are interpreting WP:N (a guideline, not policy) in a different way? Or are you referring to some other policy/guideline? I don't understand. — brighterorange (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
          • I disagree that the coverage of the subject is significant as the policy states. SWik78 (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Okay, thanks. I understand that. Well, let me just say that the biographical NY Times article is entirely about her and is two (web) pages long; the Morning Call and Wales on Sunday articles are also completely about her. To me this is "significant"; as WP:N says "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself ... have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." — brighterorange (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice.
User:Nakon closed as delete, commenting on his talk page: "Per the discussion that followed the rewrite, I didn't find that the article sufficiently showed how the subject was notable." I complained that we couldn't have reached consensus because only SWik78 and I were commenting after the rewrite and disagreed. So, let's get some consensus! Do the newspaper articles and upcoming book by a major publisher establish this writer's notability? — brighterorange (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep the sources too me, look like enough to satisfy WP:N. More info may become avaliable after she is published as well. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Brighterorange has done a fine job of fixup; article is brief, cleanly informative, verifiable, multiply sourced, intrinsically interesting, and notable per WP:N. The woman could well be another Candace Bushnell--or better--or not. And if not we will still want to have this piece of the Comédie humaine succinctly available. Palisade (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per — brighterorange and Palisade. JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, this is all pointless since I'm gonna withdraw the nom. It looks much better now. If someone else feels strongly enough, please wait awhile before renomming. JuJube (talk) 01:47, 24 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. Tiddly-Tom 07:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Still Life (1974 film)

Still Life (1974 film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete contested prod; this article offers no sources that show that this film meets WP:FILM Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep - (Btw, your link is for WikiProject Films.) This film has been directed by one of the foremost members of pre-revolution Iranian cinema, it has won significant festival prizes (Silver Bear at Berlin, 1974). The article was created because it is about to be included on the WikiProject's "Core" list, and we wanted all list topics to at least be at Stub level prior to starting editing contests intended to encourage the expansion of Core articles. As a rule, I generally do not AfD films that the most cursory of Google searches shows to be notable, even if the article is miniscule. By all means give it maintenance tags up the wazoo, but requesting deletion of a clearly viable subject is a waste of editing time and reeks of SNOW. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as per Girolamo S. --Merovingian (T, C) 01:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per Girolamo and WP:SET; its notability is easily determined, but the article could reflect that a little better. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Content issues aside, clearly a notable film. 23skidoo (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article is essentially a stub about a significant film. —SlamDiego←T 11:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep The nomination is clearly in good faith, so a speedy keep would not apply. Furthermore, this article would qualify for speedy deletion if criterion A7 applied to films as there is not even a claim of notability. From what I can tell, Still Life won a few moderately important awards at a major film festival, but it is now largely forgotten. A search of Google for "Still Life" and "1974" found very few pages referring to this film. A search for "Tabiate bijan" found mostly directory listings that confirm the film's existence but not its notability (beyond its awards). The awards may just be enough to make the film notable, but I see no evidence that this is a core film in anything other than a very narrow category.--FreeKresge (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep awards are notability, notability is permanent, and being a "core film"" is way beyond the WP standard.DGG (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete G7 by Edgar181. (non-admin closure) RMHED (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laurence Benson

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

Non-notable; notability is not inherited. Gromlakh (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Saving one's allowance isn't notable unless it makes the Times or other media outlet. Such is not the case here. DarkAudit (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Keep I am sure that you are totally unaware of him, he is a know figure in London. I think that rather than not being a suitable article it is infact your lake of awareness that lets you to believe that this is not pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cricketking (talk • contribs) 00:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Cricketking is the article's author. Gromlakh (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - simply being known is insufficient. I looked for reliable sources, and found articles for people named "Laurence Benson", but they don't appear to be the subject of this article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Possible speedy - after being told not to remove the AfD tag, the author blanked the page. It was immediately unblanked by an over-enthusiastic vandal-hunter; but the blanking should allow a speedy A7. JohnCD (talk) 10:26, 25 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. Tiddly-Tom 07:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MyHeritage

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

Non-notable website whose speedy deletion was declined. Mh29255 (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 19:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: the speedy close of this deletion debate (bundled with Chris Redfield), was reviewed and found to be improper. It is being relisted as a result. JERRY talk contribs 19:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment by original closer added by User:Jerry The result was keep (non-admin closure) ChetblongTalkSign 12:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep out-of-process close or not, this does have enough sources to establish notability. — brighterorange (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep notable —dima/talk/ 03:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As noted by user:Addhoc, this article deals with a subject that is referenced in over 100 news articles --GenUser (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:32, 26 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. Tiddly-Tom 07:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Redfield

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

Non-notable resident evil character. No real world context in the article at all, References are all to reviews of the games that mention the character, thus establishing notability for the games not the character. I have repeatedly tagged this article for improvements and the tags keep getting removed with no improvements to the article. Ridernyc (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Why pick this time and only this character? This sounds like you want this deleted just for the sake of being deleted. I'm pretty sure you have a thousand other pages to worry about. 64.85.234.166 (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep This is a central character in the original game of the Resident Evil game and movie franchise. Contrary to the Nom, articles that focus on the character are indications of notability for the character, not just the games he appears in, otherwise no video game character would be notable. Finally, the article needing improvement is not a reason for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I fail to see the problem with this article, all it needs a few more refs and citations, that no reason to delete an important video game character (noe to Edward321: Chris isn't a part of the movie franchise)!  Doktor  Wilhelm  12:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep You want development info? Here's a GameSpot article covering a Famitsu interview where there's plenty of details for RE5's development of Redfield. There's been a lot of speculation about whether it was this character seen in RE5 videos, articles like this Joystiq one attest to that and give more angles for article writing. His voice actor for the GC REmake is interviewed at this fansite, and he's been on a postage stamp, go figure. These are among the first couple of google results, we are talking about a fairly important character in a very large and popular franchise, who's going to star in one of the most eagerly awaited games in the past few years (we're almost talking GTA4 here). Someoneanother 13:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
so what you are saying is instead of having an edit war over tags if people actually improved the article and stop arguing with me the article could be improved. Hmmm what a concept.Ridernyc (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Chris Redfield is pivotal to the series. I'm sure there are plenty of other fictional characters on wiki, so no reason to delete this one. Article could be improved with some references, but otherwise it is great. Skip1337 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 19:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: the speedy close of this deletion debate was reviewed and found to be improper. It is being relisted as a result. JERRY talk contribs 19:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment by original closer added by User:Jerry The result was keep (non-admin closure) ChetblongTalkSign 12:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Sorry for any problems caused on my part. --ChetblongTalkSign 19:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - A main character of the series, needs refs, but good. And, to the lister, instead of simply listing it, try researching yourself to improve it. -Mastrchf91- 22:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
As I stated in the deletion revivew. I Have looked and so far have found no references other then plot summaries and minor mentions of game development of the new Resident Evil game which still has no release date. Take out the plot summary in this article which is simply recreation of plot summaries that belong in the game articles and you are left with a stub. Merger to a list of resident evil characters is a very valid option for all the resident evil characters with the exception of Jill Valentine and maybe Albert Wesker who due to the movies have enough notability on there own. Sorry just don't see these sources people keep claiming are everywhere and take a second to find.Ridernyc (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The sources haven't come as fast as expected, by a mile, but those ones above did pop out in no time. I think you're selling the Famitsu interview covered by GameSpot a little short, it's a solid base to include further details about Chris' development for RE5, which can be paired with the 'reveal' from Joystiq. RE5 might not be out but even if the development team dropped everything tomorrow RE5 would still pass notability, secure its own article and any info from it related to Chris Redfield would provide out-of-universe information. We then have the furore over the racism allegations, [20] [21] (amongst others), which together will not result in more than a sentence or two, but Chris Redfield is the "white man in military clothing" and there is material there. Joe Whyte's interview, as the voice actor for the character on REmake is again not overflowing with usable info but there is some info and it's from a different game - great. There are translated sources posted on fansites, like this, which may be unsuitable but do hint at where materials could be found. We then have George Romero's movie script, where Chris was a main character there's some reprinted online interviews buried in here, the script itself is online and perhaps can be used in one form or another as a reliable source, in which case we get good info. This interview quotes RE film producer Jeremy Bolt saying that Chris was being considered for the fourth film (which got canned). The info is going to take awhile to pull out and deal with but those are indicators that there's more to this. Last but not least, RE5 is the sequel to one of the most acclaimed games of recent times, it is extremely likely that more information will come to increase out-of-universe info even further. I think there is plenty of potential information here justifying a separate article. That isn't to say the chaotic RE character lists don't need some fixing and merging, but this character has good potential. Someoneanother 02:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as article concerns a main character in a notable game series. I have fulfilled the source request by adding published, reliable references and made other efforts to improve the article as well: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mastrchf91. Showers (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep major character in notable series. most of it documented as should be from the primary sources, and there are sufficient other references to satisfy those who think them necessary for an article like this. DGG (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Resident Evil is the only video game series here in Wikipedia to have individual articles for its recurring characters, even though the Resident Evil games have very minimal plot and character development to them. The only characters I can see that are probably merit of having individual articles are Jill Valentine (due to her several cameos outside the series) and maybe Albert Wesker due to his somewhat complex backstory and multiple appearances in the series. Even then, I can see most of their articles being trimmed to their bare essentials. Jonny2x4 (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete G7 by DJ Clayworth. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matteo Mameli

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

Junior academic with no particular evidence of notability. The only independent reference cited is a mixed review of one of subject's papers. Article created and edited by a couple of near-single-purpose accounts (possibly autobio), that keep removing {{Notability}} and {{Primarysources}} tags without explanation. Hqb (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yazaki

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

I had originally speedy deleted this as failing WP:CSD#G7, but I'll give it a chance here instead. · AndonicO Hail! 18:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep This company seems notable, they get quite a bit of coverage on google news archive. RMHED (talk) 22:22, 28 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aharon Moishe Leifer

Aharon Moishe Leifer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not meet bio standards. No sources since last January. Non notable. Metal Head (talk) 18:47, 23 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. Wikipedia needs reliable sources to verify which criteria is use for this article. It contains point of views which are potentially WP:OR and non-neutral. So it is better to not write about subject. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 01:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of FA Cup giant-killings

Previous AFD
List of FA Cup giant-killings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The criteria used to describe what a giant-killing constitutes is inherently original research and, per a recent discussion at WP:FOOTBALL there's quite a strong consensus for deletion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom - defining giant killin for the purposes of the list is OR. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Despite the entertainment value, it is clearly original research and therefore doesn't belong in this encyclopedia as written. To be kept, we'd need independent references that list the same set of matches, the same inclusion criteria, the same nomenclature ("giant-killings"), etc. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 18:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Delete. Since no-one can define giant-killing in any meaningful, concise manner, the list quickly becomes WP:OR. The criteria listed in the article at the moment are one author's opinion of what comprises giant-killing, but the term is used in the press whenever any lower division team beats a higher division one (and that includes upsets among different levels of non-league teams as well). If you include all those, the list becomes unusably large (at my best guess would be nearly 100 games a season!) The concept is therefore notable, but I can't define it in a way that would give us a usable article. - fchd (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I think that hits the nail on the head - the concept is notable but the definition is inherently subjective until Collins/Webster/etc define "giant-killer" within this context. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Just looked in my Collins English Dictionary and the entry for "giant killer" is "n. a person, sports team, etc., that defeats an apparently superior opponent". - fchd (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
        • That's great! So how can we now make "apparently" NPOV?! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
          • By providing reliable sources for the entries. If a result has multiple references describing it as a giant killing it is, otherwise it does not go on the list. It is not individual editors place to define criteria but the world at large. Nuttah (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Fine. Provide reliable sources for each entry. The criteria are clearly defined in the lead. They're not cited. Whose criteria are they? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
              • Those criteria in the lead are POV. The only should be that there are reliable sources describing the result as a giant killing. Nuttah (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
                • And then the article title should be List of FA Cup results described as giant-killings. Inherently there's no neutral definition of "giant-killing" so there's work to be done! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As I've commented at the football WikiProject talk page, this is irretrievably OR. Some material could make up a List of FA Cup defeats of league clubs by non-league (or perhaps better worded) but as TRM says, it'd be very hard to devise NPOV NOR wording for this. Shame, but there you go. --Dweller (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The criteria were devised by me and user:Peanut4 to keep the list to a managable size. Furthermore it prevents it being regularly hijacked by supporters of particular teams. I fully accept that those are arbitrary criteria, which I believe to make the best of a bad job. But thats the point - its just my opinion. So it's obvious to me from long discussions on this that the list is never going to meet WP:VERIFY as no two people can agree on what makes a giant killing. Valenciano (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The Compact OED gives a person or team that defeats a seemingly much more powerful opponent. Pity, but I don't see how to convert that into neutral non-OR inclusion criteria. Struway2 (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm going to buck the trend and stick my neck out. The list is notable and therefore simple keep. I concede it may well be WP:OR but giant killing does have a dictionary defition. To keep the list manageable, the list needs a criteria, which have been set. As per the previous AfD, it is possible to take WP:OR too far, see the featured list - List of important operas. I also feel that using individual sources woulnd't work, because you then leave it down to an individual journalist. If the Harrogate Advertiser called Harrogate Railway's victory over Harrogate Town a giant-killing, then we would be forced to include it. I'm open to suggestions for verifying the criteria and then putting in any upsets which match those criteria, whether sourced or not, as long as they're fact. If that's not possible, then so be it, but I feel this list is notable enough and want to make it work. Peanut4 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Much as I hate to argue with you Peanut4 but what would stop me creating "List of FA Cup giant-killings 2" (or similar) with my own criteria like "any team beaten by any other team (say) three tiers below them"? As per discussion at WP:FOOTBALL, Chasetown beat Port Vale which is a five division difference. That's about as giant killing it gets. Your giant is only as big as you are short. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately I have to admit I do agree with most of what you say (if not all). I'm just trying my hardest to keep a list which others have even admitted is notable enough. Though I did vote delete last time round!! However, I'm struggling to find a decent enough definition for giant-killing, other than David v Goliath and that even the BBC call some non-league team beating a bad Lge Two team is giant-killing, and even games in the Football League Trophy can be giant-killing! I will keep trying. Peanut4 (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Of course games in the FLT can be giant-killing, so can they in the FA Trophy, FA Vase, any competition that brings together teams from different levels. - fchd (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I was only being sarcastic about a derided competition which only has two division's worth of clubs. Peanut4 (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Very reluctant delete. I think the only way around this would be to set up some form of arbitrary criterion (e.g., "List of FA Cup wins by teams over opponents two or more flights higher in the English league system"), which is getting to be pretty wordy and, as I said, arbitrary. Given that my old home town has a proud record of such wins (and has just won through to the fourth round against higher placed opposition), I'm reluctant, but sadly in its present form the article probably has to go. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Isn't this the same as what we call an "upset" in American sports? Something like the Dolphins beating the Patriots? There's at least one source, a page that documents "shocks", and I imagine that this is recorded in printed sources as well. People have been fascinated by an unexpected defeat by a lesser opponent since the day that David met Goliath. Mandsford (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment isn't "arbitrary criterion" equivalent to "original research" really? Why is one arbitrary criterion more or less relevant than another? The issue here isn't whether or not the list contains shock results, that's a given, the issue is that the title of the article and the author's decision on what constitutes a "giant-killing". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't buy the original research argument, as lists of "giant-killing" are regularly published in the Sky Sports and News of the World football annuals. The article just needs proper sourcing. Catchpole (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
If we reproduced those lists, though, wouldn't that be copyvio....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so please define what a "giant-killing" constitutes precisely. Do you agree the current criteria are what make a giant killing? And do Sky and the News of the World have the same criteria as this article or even each other? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't own any Sky books so can't speak for them. I own quite a lot of NotW books but I can't check them right now as they're at home, but as I recall they just have a section headed something like "famous shock results" and don't set out any specific criteria..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
And, while we're at it, why shouldn't Chasetowns win over Port Vale be considered a giant killing? According to the current criteria, because Port Vale aren't in the top two divisions, it can't be listed. There's a five-division discrepancy between the two teams. That's about as "giant-killing" as it gets. But it's not going to make the list. Unless we add/modify the criteria. Which is precisely the problem with the list in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

To be honest I don't think it's possible to define giant-killing. Like I said above, the BBC cast giant-killing on even non-league teams beating other non-league teams and also Bury beating Leeds in the Football League Trophy. Yet one FA Cup story I found for Third Round day was headlined "FA Cup reaches giant-killing stage" with the implied suggestion that only teams from the top two divisions can be giant-killed. As much as I want to keep this, I reckon it's only a delete (because of WP:OR reasons and problems with sourcing the definition) or create a new entry, such as List of non-league teams beating league teams in the FA Cup or List of top tier sides beaten by lower league opposition in the FA Cup - both unwieldy titles. Peanut4 (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
From WP:NOR, "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." All that needs to be done is come up with an set of criteria and apply it based on the sources available and possibly move the article to a more appropriate name. Catchpole (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
"All that needs to be done is come up with an set of criteria..." thats that first big problem. "...the sources available ..." that's the second problem with this list - there are no reliable sources. In the current state the article should be deleted. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia of British Football (ed. Cox, Russell, Vamplew, 2002 ISBN 0714682306) has a six page section on 'Giant killers', complete with sources and match descriptions. Catchpole (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
And reprinting it here would be a copyvio. Do they mention their criteria? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You can read it starting here...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Very nice! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the main sources appears to be a book written by Geoff Tibballs entitled "FA Cup Giant Killers", I've added this to the article as a good source. Catchpole (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

But that source hasn't been used in the selection of matches here has it? Does it have the same criteria which have been arbitrarily selected here? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I have the 1996 NOTW annual about me, which has a giant-killing list. It doesn't say, and I can't tell at quick glance without knowing what divisions the clubs were in at the time, what criteria they adopt. It names about 75 results in the ten years up to 1996, about 30 in the previous ten years, and about another 30 in the whole preceding history of the FA Cup. Which to me looks pretty recentist, unless shock results only started happening in the last 30 years. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) Keep and move to List of FA Cup upsets; current title is laughably POV. --Merovingian (T, C) 10:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Not even sure about "upsets" - in any match there could be extenuating circumstances where upsets may be expected (if you know what I mean). I think that's still too POV. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
      • It was just a thought. I'd also support Peanut4's suggestion above about specifying a criterion or two. But if we give examples at upset, what's to say there can't be a list of them? --Merovingian (T, C) 10:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Don't get me wrong, it's much better than the current title with these dubious criteria. I believe in its current state the list is untenable, the only reference is poor, hardly a reliable source. I'd look for a list with each match having a citation whereby someone reliable (BBC, Sky, Times, Telegraph) etc have actually described the match as an upset (or similar). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
          • That would be fine, too. AFAIK, if a sporting event is enough of an upset, somebody in the media will say it and we can reference it. --Merovingian (T, C) 10:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Now we're getting somewhere! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
              • Using the word upset, and sourcing it to the above sources, would make the list very recentist, and also open the list to being potentially large and unmanageable, though I do congratulate the progress being made. My worry would be that such results as Wimbledon-Liverpool 1988 would be classed as an upset, yet they played each other in the league that season and such a win wouldn't create such interest. Peanut4 (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

←There is precedent for this at Polymath, where every Tom, Dick and Harry's favourite genius used to be inserted on the basis that they once did a chemistry experiment or published a book on sailor's knots or whatever. Now only people cited in RS as a polymath remain listed. However, in this case, it brings its own problems. Sports journalists tend to get a bit excitable. If (say) Fulham of the English Premier League, defeated Man Utd in an FA Cup game, I wouldn't be surprised to find an RS that described it as a "giant-killing" and I would expect to see it reported as an "upset", yet it would not be a notable match and in encyclopedic terms shouldn't be included. Yet how could we exclude it without contravening NPOV? I just think this is unrescuable. --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

'Upset' is far worse than Giant Killing as its even more in the eye of the beholder. Wins by clubs near the bottom of the Premier against the big four are usually described as upsets. With over 700 ties taking place each season that means at least 50 games each season. For the list to have any value it needs to avoid recentism and include only the most notable results. This was the whole point of the current criteria. Its obvious that there is no agreement on the criteria so this is a clear delete for me I'm afraid. Valenciano (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this is an oustanding example of a deletion debate. Kudos to everyone involved. --Dweller (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

People need to keep Wikipedia policies in mind here.
First WP:Verify says that results should be backed against reliable sources. I'm sure we could do that with results currently in the list. But theres also WP:Notability which says: "A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability" in other words just because journalist X considers a result an upset today doesn't mean it will be remembered five years from now. So those two need to be balanced against each other.
Second WP:NoOriginalResearch. Thatš the problem with the list regardless of how we tinker with it. If we're not going to have a pointless indiscriminate list of 5000 odd results we need criteria. But to cover results which always crop up on the lists those criteria will always be arbitrary e.g. "a three division gap over top flight clubs or a two division gap if they finished in the top six or won the cup the previous season; or a four division gap for lower level clubs; or a one division gap for the final"
Thirdly WP:I like it. Yes it's an interesting list but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. Valenciano (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Good summing up. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: WP:Verify. I totally agree, which is why I would rather see the criteria be sourced rather than individual results. That way it avoids one journalist at either the BBC, or a local newspaper, but at any RS, getting carried away with one win. If such verification isn't possible, then the only possible result of this titled entry is delete.
Re: WP:I like it. I think this list suits WP:LIST. It is a structured chronological list, partly as an off shoot of the FA Cup entry, and would be of the giant-killing entry currently on the Requests list. Peanut4 (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
But the problem is that who decides which criteria is correct? There's no right answer. There wasn't much response to the question "why Chasetown beating Port Vale (five divisions above them) shouldn't go in this list". The reason why it all went quiet was because I suspect we all know the answer and it's that the criteria will always be subjective, therefore POV, therefore unsuitable for an article like this. 192.93.164.23 (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but I've given reasons why Chasetown shouldn't be included on umpteen occasions. First - recentism. An identical result when Bedlington beat Colchester who were five levels higher in 1998-9 is largely forgotten. Secondly and most crucially Chasetown is already mentioned in the appropriate section History of the FA Cup and I truly don't believe that a second round win over Port Vale is so notable that it needs to be mentioned twice. Thirdly it comes down to how we define giant killing and I view it to be beating a giant as if we're to include all wins by non-league clubs over level three clubs, the list becomes a bit pointless. Is my POV any more worthy than your POV? I readily accept that it isn't and given the multiple disagreements in sources, thatš why its gotta go. Valenciano (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Chasetown beating Port Vale to me isn't a giant-killing (though I agree it's a relative giant-killing to Port Vale). Chasetown beating Port Vale is a cup upset, and a very substantial one at that. Subtlely changing the article title, as suggested above, changes the goalposts, pardon the pun, a hell of a lot. Peanut4 (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

←Bizarre. A part-time amateur team beating a professional league club founded in 1876, five divisions above them isn't a giant killing act? Well that's it (all over again) - a subjective choice. Relativity, subjectivity, arbitrary criteria, that's what makes this whole thing wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it all depends on how you define the word 'Giant'. I don't know about you but when people ask me for a giant of English football, Vale aren;t the first club to spring to mind. If they'd been founded in 876 it wouldn't change that one iota. As I say Chasetown are already mentioned in the relative section, why should we duplicate a mention of a win over third level Port Vale but not mention arguably more notable results? The simple question Rambling man, is do you remember the equivalent result in 1999 when Bedlington beat Colchester? If the answer is no, then I rest my case. If the answer is yes, then weŗe still broadly in agreement about the subjectivity of the article. Valenciano (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, and I've said it before, the term "giant" in this context is relative. So Chasetown's giant (Port Vale) is Liverpool's minnow. Everything is relative, needs context and will always be dependent on someone's definition. Thus never NPOV, thus delete. BTW I'm the wrong person to ask about Col U since I'm an ITFC/Col U fan (if you can have such a thing) so yes I do! And that's yet another problem. All lists will be infiltrated by the "Oh, but what about X F.C. who once beat Y Rovers in the 2nd round in 1955?" This list can never be resolved satisfactorily. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
I totally agree with you Valenciano, which is why I say it's a substantial upset. I just don't count Port Vale as a giant. But I also agree with TRM's synopsis. Our difference of opinions unfortunately, and I say unfortunately because I see this as a notable list, show how POV the whole list will always be under its current title. Peanut4 (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Peanut you and I have probably spent more time than anyone trying to keep these lists workable and I just think weŗe flogging a dead horse here. Rambling man, as a colchester fan you are forgiven :) Youre totally right anyway. The lists have been dogged from the word go by 'whataboutery.' Last season it was league one Forest beating Premiership Charlton. A straw poll from a predictions league I'm on had 13 people going for a Forest win, 12 for a Charlton win and four for a draw. Not even an upset nevermind a giant killing. No matter who we quote from, be it BBC, Sky, News of the World, theyļl never agree. As youļl agree, my POV and Original Research is no better than yours. Valenciano (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid we can't use BBC, Sky or NOTW as full reliable sources because none existed when the FA Cup started so the list will never be complete using those. Peanut4 (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The cup has also been around longer than the league (and certainly longer than a series of organised lower flights of it), so the early matches are always going to be a problem from that point of view. But there are histories of the FA Cup published out there - if one of them says that, say Cambridge University beating Royal Engineers 1-0 in the 1877 Quarter Finals was a major upset (which it was - RE had won the clash of these two sides 5-0 two seasons earlier, and had been in three of the first four finals), then if that source is a reputable souce it should be good enough. This strikes me as being a similar problem to that met with by Place names considered unusual - a page which was thoroughly and sadly gutted after AFD. Grutness...wha? 23:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reluctant delete - as it seems sentiment is against it, and I was the one who originally split it from FA Cup. That said, giant-killings are an important part of the FA Cup and it should be mentioned somewhere, perhaps not in list format though. Qwghlm (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research and POV on "giant-killing". Changing the title to FA Cup Upsets would still be OR and POV. Define an upset? Two non-league clubs 80+ places apart in the pyramid getting a 1-1 draw would be an upset. Lugnuts (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per fchd. D.M.N. (talk) 11:06, 27 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. Please note that the reasons for deletion here can be fixed with cleanup, article so tagged. Keeper | 76 17:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mufti Mukarram Ahmad

Mufti Mukarram Ahmad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

To start with, this article was initially a copy paste job from other sources as was noted here. Beyond that, it is currently laden with so many unsourced claims, peacock terms, honorifics, and POV breaches that when the article was fixed to be in line with WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and other policies it was too small to even justify an article about this individual as may be seen here.
Regarding the "sources" provided, none of them actually establish Mufti Mukarram Ahmad's notability. There are nine total:

  • a link in the lead to an eight sentence news story in The Hindu which contains one single quote from Ahmad (though the article itself is about something else entirely).
  • a link under a section called "source" to an archived BBC news story from almost six years ago interviewing a handful of individuals about Muslim life in India, which contains two brief sentences from Ahmad along with a professor and a student.
  • another link under the "source" section, to a page selling about a dozen books by this person, in violation of rules regarding commercial links.
  • under the "external links" section, an eight sentence news clip mentioning Ahmad's opposition to Israel in an unknown Indian news website.
  • a ten sentence news story from another unknown Indian news site back from 2006 where Ahmad talks about Saddam Hussein's execution.
  • a link to a more substantial news story from almost two years ago that literally just mentions the guy's name once in passing among half a dozen other imams. Doesn't say anything about him, just lists him as one of many imams.
  • the same exact article from The Hindu found in the article's lead, posted again under "external links".
  • a 2003 report from an NGO called "Global PeaceWorks" which mentions Ahmad's name in a list with half a dozen other religious leaders in India. Like before, doesn't really say anything about him except that he's an imam.
  • a site listen as his "Home Page" which doesn't even seem to mention him at all.

Honestly, it seems as though someone has created an article for some random Imam they happen to like and are grasping for straws to find any mention of him on the internet to bolster its notability. There are thousands of other individuals like this that you can find in Muslim countries and while i'm sure Mr. Ahmad is a good person, a few mentions of him in India-based news sites here and there really isn't proof of notability beyond any other imam anywhere else. Normally this wouldn't be a big deal, however lately there has been a large abundance of imams from India and Pakistan, especially those associated with the Barelwi movement, which articles created for them and little to no sourcing or signs of notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Very Strong Keep-Mufti Mukarram is not mere an Imam but a Shahi(The Royal) Imam of Shahi Mosque at Fatehpuri.Fatehpuri is Second most reputed mosque in India after Jama Masjid in terms of Decisions on Moon sighting[27] or

representing Muslims in different fields. Former Popular president of India APJ Kalam has Offered Eid Prayers two times here in Fatehpuri Mosque due to Strong appeal of Mufti Mukarram in the mass[28].

  • He is always Voice of Muslims on all Important Issues[29]
  • Find him here He is Often quoted in Press due to his importance in the Community.Most Importantly major Urdu news papers Prints all his Sermons every Friday.
  • The Home Page is of his family which Proves that he is Imam by Inheritence in this Mughal Mosque.He is here for almost 30 years.site says that ,At present the grand son of Mufti-i-Azam, Allama, Dr. Mufti Muhammad Mukarram Ahmed is the Imam of Fatehpuri Mosque and Mufti (the jurist of Islamic law) in Delhi[30].
  • fatehpuri Mosque[31] .there are hundreds of Links which Undoubtedly establishes his notability and Moreover a person may be More notable despite less presence on net and he is notable .Just call some friend from india and ask about him.
  • Other editors have look at mezzo's editing as he is hyperactive editor of Salafi/Wahabi sect and has consumed time in deleting material of Other's ideology.Shabiha (t • c) 06:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have told you multiple times not to call me a Wahhabi as it is a derogatory term, to the point where you had to be banned temporarily by the admins. Consider this a warning. Keep this focused on discussion of the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I've noticed so many of these non-notable pages created by User:Shabiha, and find many of their edit summaries baffling and sometimes insulting. I remain as ever, a non-believer and irreligious heathen. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed the exact same thing. Are your two cents support for deletion? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete suspiciously POV. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Keep-I found it needs some Improvement but it needs to be kept.Mufti sb is notable person and article about him should not be deleted.Msoamu (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per User:Xxanthippe. Poor Mr Rushdie :( Gareth E Kegg (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete fails notability and is full of BLP violations. RMHED (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments-I have no more to say but just Lookhere Can a Non Notable person write 25 Volumes of Encyclopedia of Islam and if yes than thousands of pages on wikipedia deserves to be Deleted. I am proud to say that he is not famous and Notable by websites among masses but due to his works ..
  • Article may lacks some Sources it may need some Improvement .Just google him and find how many sites of news papers are quoting him.

Shabiha (t 15:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment The fact that his books are out of print probably counts against claims of notability. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep Looks like one should almost certainly be able to find reliable sources about him given what he has done (why didn't anyone explain above to the anyone that that was what we needed?). To be very clear for anyone looking what we need to keep this article are non-trivial, independent, reliable sources that talk about him. As to the other matters, the BLP material can be removed and the non so good English can be dealt with with clean up rather than deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I think he list of publications at [32] is sufficient for notability. That they are out of print makes no difference whatsoever. Notability is permanent. However, the encyclopedia of Islam referred to above is a 19th century work, obviously by someone else with a somewhat similar name, according to the entry in the British Library Catalog. [33]. Amazon records are not reliable. DGG (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments The first link seems to just be quoting him in one line. The second and third are more brief quotes in the same unknown site I mentioned above. MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - per JoshuaZ and DGG's notability assertions. BLP vios can be removed, they don't require deletion. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, AfD is not a call for editing services, go edit the article. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anya Hindmarch

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

There is no doubt that this article is very spammy; however, if the assertions are true, it may not be irredeemably spammy, so I would feel wrong speedy deleting it. Still, delete, pending reliable sources and a major trimming job. Xoloz (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep if fully rewritten, else delete and hope for an eventual decent article, possibly at I’m Not A Plastic Bag. Hindmarch/I’m Not A Plastic Bag is indeed quite notable and there's solid sourcing to work with, but an article with such unsalvagably spammy content as "synonymous with beautiful craftsmanship, exceptional quality" must not be allowed to remain. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the statement "must not be allowed to remain" then just hit the edit button and remove it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please read my words more carefully. I didn't say there was an issue with that statement, but with the overall tone of the article. If fixing it was as simple as removing a line here and a line there, it wouldn't be at AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and start over. This is not an article, this is an ad. No reliable, independent sources. No sources whatsoever. DarkAudit (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - passes WP:Notability, its just a YUCK article at present and needs all the references that a quick GSearch finds put in, and the SPAM removed (aka a rewrite!). Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article's subject is clearly notable. Anyone who has concerns about the content is free to edit it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Feature articles from BBC [34] and times Online [35] are sufficient. Just add them. DGG (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I added the refs and toned down the puffery. RMHED (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kyle Belousek

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

Delete as per WP:NOTE. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete as original research. Closing under WP:SNOW. KrakatoaKatie 06:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civility of Yankee Imperialism

Civility of Yankee Imperialism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:OR. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. OR, essay, as it stands.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I must say, I laughed at the title though. matt91486 (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Reads like information from a book review or something. —Travistalk 18:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above (and WP:SNOW) D.M.N. (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - per D.M.N. and above. Cheers, LAX 21:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Steven may have received an A minus on this in the Spring 2007 semester, but it's not an article. Mandsford (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article is on the views of what it calls “The handful of scholars”; this argues against notability. —SlamDiego←T 11:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think it safe to say that this will never be more than the OR essay. Pastordavid (talk) 20:48, 24 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. JERRY talk contribs 00:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Engineering To Order

Engineering To Order (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete as per A7. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - per WP:CSD#A7. Cheers, LAX 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary - per WP:CSD#A5. There's a not a lot that can be added to this than what a dictionary entry would include - so move to Wiktionary. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:37, 24 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 a1 empty, g1 nonsense, a7 no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zana Jaff

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

Delete as per WP:NOTE. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Total nonsense WhaleyTim (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as nonsense, unremarkable bio, sheer vandalism, so many reasons. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:08, 23 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 08:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Western School of Health and Business Careers - Monroeville

Western School of Health and Business Careers - Monroeville (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY Hu12 (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Okaythen, with the deletion of the adverts and the original research, it just barely meets WP:N, but I can only upgrade my vote to a Weak Keep right now Doc Strange (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - tertiary educational institutions have long been regarded as notable. TerriersFan (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Accredited tertiary schools are surely notable. (I haven't seen a non-notable tertiary school yet, but surely accreditation is a stamp of notability for colleges/universities?) CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can demonstrate notability as per WP:N or WP:ORG. This is a for-profit company, and while I disagree with the sometimes wild lengths that some editors go to in avoiding mentions of for-profit companies, we do sometimes need to hold them to a strict standard. The reasons for that are (a) they've got a bit less accountability to the public and are therefore more likely to lie in their self-published materials, including their Web site, and (b) I think there's slightly more chance that someone working for the place could present the company in a distorted way. For the good of Wikipedia, we don't want to be an advertising vehicle. I did a cursory look at G-hits and Google Archive hits and didn't find good sources. Also, there's an article for this campus, but not for the school as a whole (the other campus is in Pittsburgh) and it seems to me that a single article encompassing the entire school would be more appropriate. By the way, the dean of education for this school plead guilty to charges that he lied to the federal government. That doesn't mean the school is lieing all over the place, but it isn't reassuring. Noroton (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually I don't think material from the school should ever be used as a source for anything other than (personnel and) to document the school's viewpoint: in general, not just with for-profits. I agree, though, that a single article for the school would be better -- renaming it might be appropriate. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have converted this to a single article covering both campuses. I have also cleaned out the page to remove promotional material and added the Dean's conviction for balance. There are 122 articles in the For-Profit colleges category and I don't think we can object on that ground when Wikipedia is chock full of commercial companies and products. TerriersFan (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
... and now added the necessary independent sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Please help me, I am confuzzled. What other article? JERRY talk contribs 02:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It was an article just on the Western School of Health and Business Careers - Monroeville caampus but with a wave of my mouse, as if by magic, it is now a page on the college as a whole :-) TerriersFan (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah. OK, good deal. Another article saved from certain death by TF! Do you keep count? JERRY talk contribs 16:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Nah, the job satisfaction is enough but if we ever started to delete tertiary institutions we may as well give up having any pretence at being a serious encyclopaedia. TerriersFan (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep if a college is real, and it offers degrees, it's notable. Even associate degrees. Profit or non-profit has nothing to do with it. DGG (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as an accredited college which confers degrees. JERRY talk contribs 16:21, 26 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. Keeper | 76 19:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pipiskin

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

No notability, a notorious prank, corresponding article was deleted in Russian WP. --ssr (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Further reasoning: the originating event was that editor flawed with fictional surname and was instantly fired the morning after. The consequent event was a huge temporary resonance in blogs and some news discussing RSS-exported flaw shortly removed from the originating article. Further talks on the "virtual politician", "his websites" "election candidate" are unrelated to the event's origins and are unnotable. Such an article was previously deleted in Russian Wikipedia with similar reasoning and blocked for further creation. --ssr (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a modern example of Russian "Lieutenant Kijé". Third reference (Russian) seems to be sufficient to establish notability. Need to be improved and better sourced.Biophys (talk) 23:56, 24 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 06:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fábio Pacheco

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

Another youth player not yet made his professional debut in first team Matthew_hk tc 16:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:BIO (hasn't played in a fully-pro league). пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I checked ESPNsoccernet's Pacos de Ferreira site ([36]) and Pacheco has not even made the substitutes bench in the league this season. He has not played in a fully professional league and fails WP:N. Jogurney (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. BanRay 11:05, 24 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. Canley (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ghost (producer)

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

Non-notable producer who has worked with, for the most part, marginally notable artists; not responsible for any hit singles or albums. His own albums are either self-released or on a minor indie label. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:NOTE. Speedy deletion was declined, this this nomination. Precious Roy (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. Notable and highly regarded producer who is very successful within his genre. Adequate coverage - refs added. The record label has been established since 1999 and has a long history of releases. --Michig (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment References added are not from reliable sources but genre fansites and a blog. This is not "multiple non-trivial published works... such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries" Precious Roy (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment. None of the refs look like blogs to me. You call them genre fansites, I would call them specialist on-line news sites/magazines. Rapnews has been established since 2003 and is supported by the arts council. --Michig (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment The link sure looks like a blog entry to me but I'll take your word for it. Precious Roy (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - the problem here is the quality of the WP:RS. There are lots of references on him, they are just - weak on our criteria, as they are all specialist sources. I don't know this area well enough, so I tried the BBC's Hip-Hop area, but that doesn't have a reference on him. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As I posted on the talk page of the article, the claim that his album was the 2nd-best-selling British hip hop album of 2007 does not appear to be borne out by the low number of ghits (~730) returned for the album title/artist. Precious Roy (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Precious Roy (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. While the article could do with improvement and better references, what's already there seems sufficient to demonstrate notability under WP:MUSIC. Bondegezou (talk) 16:05, 29 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 06:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic Next Gen Series

Sonic Next Gen Series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article does not contain any actual content itself, just links to other pages for the games listed. Information that would fall under this page is already on the Sonic the Hedgehog series page, and so the Next Gen page does not need to be a separate article Redphoenix526 (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete already in main article. Fancruft Doc Strange (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Simply a list of links to sonic characters with their own articles. Falls under WP:CRUFT. Plm209(talk • contribs) 17:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing much that isn't in the original article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:08, 23 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wedcast

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

Non notable. No links. No real references. Nothing here at all. Delete Metal Head (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. I was inspired to write the article by an article in the Boston Globe, which I cited. The article pointed to the fact that several businesses offer the "wedcast" service. Although it is minor, it does exist and can be verified. If nothing else, a merge into webcast may be justified. Btw, thanks to the nominator for telling me about this. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge It can be kept with more infomation, but thats unlikely (considering that the only reference is an article). I think it should be merged with its own section. 1yodsyo1 [Talk|User_talk:1yodsyo1] 16:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1yodsyo1 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Just because you read it somewhere does not signify importance. You must provide a link to that. There is no link, thus no sources.Metal Head (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no "must provide link" rule. Print sources are valid. --Oakshade (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Update - Not because it's a "rule", but just as a service to editors, I've added a url to the Boston Globe article. --Oakshade (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - An actual form of webcasting and the in depth Boston Globe and Time articles about it demonstrate its notability. --Oakshade (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless more sources are provided. Surely a single article on a cutesy trend does not make said trend encyclopedic? The Globe writes about lots of things, and many articles can be considered local filler -- for example, here is an article on the "Growing number of professionals" moving away from Boston to learn cheese-making. Need we have an article on that? I get 333 google hits for the term "Wedcast". No doubt its day will come, but without multiple references in reliable sources, it's not here yet. bikeable (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A source as significant and in depth as the one from the Boston Globe suffices. Besides, the Time article is also from a very reliable source and the piece is in depth. Deleting an article on a notable topic because you think it's "cutesy" is a pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. --Oakshade (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The Time source wasn't listed when I made my comment. I was not arguing deletion because it's cutsey, but because a single source is not adequate. Newspapers write plenty of fluff pieces that do not describe encyclopedic subjects; thus my cutesy comment. However, the new addition of a second source pushes me up to weak keep. bikeable (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That is a classic case of WP:OSTRICH. Do research on a topic before making a decision to delete an article. The Time reference was found within seconds. And if a reliable source writes about a topic, it is considered notable. Cheese making is an encyclopedic topic, that's why the Boston Globe wrote about people moving to certain areas to learn it. Your opinion as to what is "fluff" is not a deciding factor in keeping or deleting articles.--Oakshade (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, please chill. I did some quick research, and missed the Time article, but the small number of google results show that this is extremely close to being a neologism. And you still misunderstand my argument; of course cheese making is notable, but one article in a paper on an alleged local trend does not make that trend notable. I'm sorry you didn't like or understand my argument, but you needn't insult editors whose !votes you disagree with. bikeable (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - there's a couple very strong sources in the article, and it seems like this article could also be further improved in the future. A decent stub to begin with! Tarinth (talk) 12:51, 24 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 06:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ABC For Kids Video Hits 2

ABC For Kids Video Hits 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable. No links. Nothing special. Metal Head (talk) 16:01, 23 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), per WP:SNOW. ChetblongTalkSign 05:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polish culture during World War II

Polish culture during World War II (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nothing significant. General knowledge that culture suffered during WWII. Nothing special about this page. Metal Head (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what encyclopedias are for - general knowledge. Not for sophisticated subjects as "Lorentz transformations in 6D time space (3D time, 3D space)"; with that question I recommend to look at Physical Review, Section D - Unified theories of fields. If you know everything about the subject of Polish culture during WWII, I don't see why the others, less educated ones on this particular matter than you shouldn't know of it too? I advise you to withdraw this AfD until you make a complete fool of yourself. greg park avenue (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable stub, part of a series with as much potential for growth as any other article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Highly expandable stub on notable subject. Visor (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep-Notable. Influence of German genocide on poetry, literature is well recorded in that period. Deaths of several artists. Artistic resistance towards German public propaganda. Many topics worth expanding and deserving an article.--Molobo (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Great potential for further expansion. --Poeticbent talk 19:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - notable, well-sourced, and now about 10 times longer than when the nomination was made. Biruitorul (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This is to greg park, you have been the fool for trying to attack an individual on wikipedia. Get a life. I nominated this because at the time, it was non-notable. The sites were miniscule, and the three lines written were nothing notable either. It only said that polish culture suffered during WW2. Every culture suffered during WW2.(except for maybe the eskimos) Now, it is a notable page. Greag Park, I advise you to stay off of AfD until you can find something worth saying.Metal Head (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Point taken. But I shared my comment when this article was still a baby. Let's make a peace and bury the axe, Undead Warrior. greg park avenue (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - a good basic article which could be expanded into something very useful and highly encyclopaedic. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:55, 24 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, though it badly needs referencing.--Kubigula (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dial-a-Phone

Dial-a-Phone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This was originally a candidate for speedy deletion, PRODed by me in the alternative, and now disputed. There are presently no reliable sources offered to support this stub, calling into question whether it can meet WP:V, and whether the article is advertorial. Delete Xoloz (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete: Of no encyclopedic value. Also as per Xoloz. BigDunc (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There are no sources in the article, but they seem to be a pretty major company. I found a lot of news articles on LexisNexis... boring stuff, but enough to establish notability. They are mostly from British sources, and it is a little tricky to search because the prase "dial a phone" appears often. But for example,
    • Sunday Times (London); January 31, 1999, Sunday; Barclays Private Equity backs Dial-a-Phone expansion
    • The Independent (London); May 28, 2004, Friday; FRIDAY LAW REPORT: APPROPRIATE TEST OF ATTRIBUTABILITY FOR VAT PURPOSES; 28 MAY 2004 DIAL-A-PHONE LTD V COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
  • Keep - highly notable mobile phone supplier, which a large market share. Article is more of a stub at present, and misses most of the good references from a quick Google search. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Big company that needs a reference point here, so far attempts to put information about the owner, staff levels and sales figures have been deleted quickly, all are referenced on their website. Subject of reputation needs research, but has got some groundings with a basic search. -- 12:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.142.7 (talk)
  • Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

From reading the arguments presented by both sides of the debate, the keep arguments were much more convincing overall. The issues that were presented by the people who adovated for the article deletion has been mostly addressed or irralevent, at least in version I read at the time of AfD closure. The article passes WP:SELF and WP:OR by my interpretations, which were the majority of the deletion arguments were based on, therefore, there is a stronger consensus towards the keep, if the strength of the arguments are considered. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletionist versus Inclusionist Controversy

Deletionist versus Inclusionist Controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:SYNTH, WP:ASR. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as a NN self-reference. Mayalld (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It is not a self-reference under the definition of WP:ASR, which specifically states that article about communities (or Wikipedia in particular) are acceptable. And the claim that something which has been discussed as significant within media outlets like NPR and the Telegraph is laughable. Tarinth (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - the article is about the fact that a controversy exists, which has been noted as an important phenomena by major media sources such as National Public Radio and The Telegraph (which are surely verifiable sources used as reference material in the article). The risks and consequences of the controversy have been observed by these media sources, as well as scholarly sources (also included in the article). I'll also note that the time between the publishing of this article and the time it took to even nominate it for deletion was less time than the editor could have even listened to one of the important pieces of source material, which was the recording of the NPR program on this subject. Tarinth (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not a speedy keep in any way, if you read what that page says. Also going on your userpage, it worries me that this may be vulnerable to breaches of WP:NPOV and possibly WP:SOAP - just to be totally honest. Still, I'd like to see more consensus on this. For a precedent of a referenced article which I put to AfD immediately after its creation was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myspace invites and out of control parties and the community ended up agreeing with me on the whole. It doesn't quite meet ASR, but it's still ASR-ish and possibly redundant to other articles.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • My personal thoughts on the subject are transparent. Nevertheless, the article isn't written as either a soapbox or as a point-of-view article, and would welcome any further editing on it to provide more information. Just because a subject is uncomfortable to some editors doesn't mean the fact that a controversy legitimately exists (and has been covered by the media) should be censored. Tarinth (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as we generally avoid self-reference. Maybe there's room for a sentence or two on this in the Criticism of Wikipedia article, but not an article of its own. As an aside, I wrote an essay of my own on this topic about a year ago (see User:Starblind/DeletionWars )... userspace rather than article space is definitely the place for this sort of thing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It isn't appropriate for userspace because it is not an essay, but a discussion of the controversy as has been observed by the media. It would not belong in the Criticism article you mentioned, because the article is about the fact that a controversy exists--and the article isn't framed as criticism, but merely the phenomena. Tarinth (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • That argument serves only to remind us, yet again, that "Criticism of …" articles are inherently non-neutral. You consider yourself unable to add content from external analyses of Wikipedia to an article that presents external analyses of Wikipedia, because you think that it doesn't fit within the "Criticism of …" article's slanted and negative point of view.

        Let's not pretend that this is a discussion of anything other than Wikipedia alone, by the way. Even our own meta-discussions don't make mention of any projects other than Wikipedia. I've yet to see Wikibooks or Wikiquote discussed as having these by anyone, for example.

        As such, the fact that you are unable to add content on differences amongst editors of Wikipedia to Wikipedia, or to one of its summary-style sub-articles, says that our articles aren't structured correctly. It doesn't mean that we should claim that there's some phenomenon independent of Wikipedia. That's original research, given that there are no sources in existence, not even stuff that Wikipedia editors have written about themselves, documenting an independent and general phenomenon. Uncle G (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete I'm an inclusionist, but I'm going to have to be deletionist here... SeanMD80talk | contribs 15:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you actually have a reason, or merely making an ironic point? Tarinth (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:ASR, a guideline, seems geared chiefly towards avoiding the assumption that readers of Wikipedia articles are reading them on Wikipedia or are familiar with the nature of our lucubrations. I don't see that here. This article is about notice that has been taken in the non-Wikipedia world about our "inclusionists" and "deletionists". I didn't really see any original research or synthesis here; the positions discussed in this article are in fact discussed in the sources, and no non-article-space material is linked in this text, though it is linked in some of the stories quoted as sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - I've added another reference (USA Today) that has discussed the controversy. Tarinth (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It seems to me that this meta-discussion deserves its place on WP. In support of the Inclusionists, I'd like to say that it does not make sense to delete ANY well-written content, irrelevant as it might seem to some persons. After all, is that not an advantage of an electronic encyclopedia? We do not have a hard limit on the number of pages we can print. So, why this hurry to hack and slash work that people obviously put a lot of work into? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.134.181 (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • For a prior AFD discussion of a very similar article, see Constructionism and reductionism (wiki) (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The article you're referring to wasn't referenced with reliable sources; this one is. The topic is something of interest outside Wikipedia itself. And with due respect to the keep voter from 129.21.134.181, the overall point is well-taken (although this article isn't a meta-discussion at all, but an article on a subject well-documented by secondary sources. Tarinth (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tarinth. --Explodicle (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep In addition to the fact that reliable and verifiable sources have been provided to satisfy the Wikipedia notability standard, the mere fact that there are people who created this article and believe it should be retained, while there are others who demand that the article be deleted, is ample evidence of a deep, fundamental and notable split in our community. This is a very real issue that has real-world consequences that has been thoroughly documented in the real world; this is not a "meta" issue. Alansohn (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • As you say, this is a split in "our community" [your words]; does that mean that we have to inflict this internal conflict onto the wide world? Let's just step back for a second and think about what is and what isn't imporant in the real wide world. Yes, Wikipedia is imporant; it is (we hope) a respectable and valuable source of information. Is every single conflict that occurs within the Wikipedia community equally important? The answer is a clear no. Every Internet community or organization (say, Microsoft, Google, Slashdot, Facebook, Flickr etc. etc.) will have its own fair share of internal controversies; none of these controversies are encyclopedic topics. The fact that we are Wikpedia does not mean that our internal conflicts should have preference over all the other conflicts that happen in the digital world. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - this is one of the highest-profile controversies in the media. I'm an inclusionist myself, and I frankly think the fact that this article was nominated (and quickly) for AfD is the strongest evidence possible that its contents are both true and noteable. --Arcanios (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you serious? The fact that somebody nominated this article for AfD is a good evidence that "its contents are both true and noteable"? So, whenever someone nominates something for XfD, that is a good evidence that the content is both true and notable??? -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand me. This is not true for any AfD article, but for this one it is, because deletion is precisely what it is about. The discussion here and in the media shows clearly that the topic is noteable. The notability standard for a controversy must obviously be how many people care. And lots of people care about this one - on both sides of the matter. --Arcanios (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Strong" Comment. I started this AfD, but don't you think we should consider merging this content? I never 'voted' delete in the first place...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You do realize that you submitted this article to "Articles for Deletion"? If you wanted to propose a merge or a rename, then the palce to have done that would best be in the article's talk page, not here. Among the issues you cited as justifications for deletion, the multiple reliable sources address WP:NOR and WP:N. I see no WP:SYNTH issues, nor have they been specified. You also listed WP:ASR as a justification, which some of our delete voters have also latched onto. The problem is that Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid#Writing about Wikipedia itself clearly indicates that articles about Wikipedia are perfectly acceptable as long as the article is written "in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia", a standard that this article satisfies. The deeper question -- at the heart of the deletionist/inclusionist controversy discussed here in the article -- is why the only alternative option to keeping an article is deleting it? Why are the alternative options of improve, expand, move out of namespace or merge not considered as viable alternatives to deletion, the most disruptive possible option? Alansohn (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If your thoughts were simply that you thought the article should be merged, that discussion is normally held in the talk pages of the article in question. An AfD is for deletion (historically, a "merge" vote in an AfD is equivalent to "keep", albeit with a strong suggestion that it be merged...) Nevertheless, while we're on the subject: no, I do not believe there's an article that exists that this can be merged to. As Uncle G noted, the "Criticism of" articles suggest an underlying tone; and in fact, this article is not a criticism or summary of criticism of Wikipedia, it is merely documenting a well-discussed phenomena. Furthermore, the subject itself is large and significant enough that it exists as a notable topic on its own... If you look at any of the several sources provided, almost their entire content deals with this specific subject (and not vague criticism or analysis of Wikipedia in general). Tarinth (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I wouldn't object to a merger if someone could do it appropriately, but I do not believe this AfD should be withdrawn. I brought it here for discussion. I'm leaning towards delete, but if someone could suggest an appropriate place to merge this, then I might support that. Still, at the moment, I'd favour deletion. There are many, many Wikipedia-related things like this which we don't have articles on in the main namespace. What about articles about WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:NPOV? I'm sure these could be written with reference to third-party sources, but they're not necessary.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The answer to your question is simply that National Public Radio, The Telegraph, USA Today and Harvard Business School are not primarily talking about subjects of minor interest such as the alphabet soup of WP policies...They're talking about the deletionist vs. inclusionist controversy. If they *did* start talking about those subjects to the same extent as this one--then by all means, they'd deserve their own mainpage articles as well. This subject is large enough and garnering enough attention that it demands its own article, and there's no other appropriate place for it (I'd be open to a rename if someone has a better idea, but that discussion can happen on its talk page). Tarinth (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed, 100%. WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST is not a valid argument for deletion, nor does WP:IDONTLIKEIT carry any weight. This article as it stands needs to be addressed and this article provides real-world reliable and verifiable sources from prominent national publications covering the issue. If you can find any corresponding references to WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:NPOV, they might be subjects for articles, and I will be more than happy to support your creation of such articles once the needed sources are available. This is a real-world notable subject for an article. One has to love the irony of seeing the article's subject played out right here at an AfD nomination submitted ten minutes after the article was created. Ah, the folly's of deletionism, which can be best enjoyed if you appreciate the entertainment value. Alansohn (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The conflict between inclusionists and deletionists on Wikipedia has received substantial coverage, properly referenced in the article, in USA Today, National Public Radio, The Telegraph, Canadian paper National Post and the Harvard Business School. This easily satisfies WP:N and WP:V. This is not original research and it is not a metadiscussion among editors. The fact that somewheere on Wikipedia editors discuss something has no bearing on whether a referenced article about the subject is also appropriate. This short article probably in the top 25% of Wikipedia articles in terms of having multiple independent and reliable references with substantial coverge. We needn't attempt to hide disputes within the Wikipedia comunity from public scrutiny, when they are widely covered in the world's newspapers and broadcast media. It clearly is not a candidate for merger to a "Criticisms of Wikipedia" article or section, since the references and the text do not single out either philosophy as deficient. This could be a section in the main article, so separately from this AFD there could be a merger proposal. Edison (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Still, I do not think this deserves a separate encyclopedic entry. If you think you can sensibly merge this into something, either into Wikipedia or Criticism of Wikipedia or anything like that, you're welcome; but on its own this just isn't an encyclopedic article. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • For a possible merger target, just add a section with the same title as this article. I think it is an important factor in determining whether Wikipedia is a collection of everything verifiable that anyone chooses to write about, or whether there is a threshold for encyclopedic notability. Such a section wouild improve the Wikipedia article. I speak as someone who is neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist. Edison (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am an inclusionist and deletionists stress me out. The fact that this split in wiki is documented is interesting to me.Skip1337 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes? You haven't addressed why this is an encyclopedic topic. Yes, "it is interesting to you." Perhaps this can be kept somewhere in the "Wikipedia:" namespace, but this is certainly not an encyclopedic article. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia defines an Encyclopedia as "a great comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge" - so how is this article "not enclyclopedic"? Skip1337 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Delete - This controversy between deleting and including articles on the encyclopedia represents an internal conflict that has no real world applicability. That real world sources may report on the machinations of the deletion do not give the debate any real world relevance. It should be moved as an essay to the Wikipedia namespace and referenced better to the information on deletionists and inclusionists presented on Wikimedia. That way the information survives for those it is relevant to and we can sidestep the brutal irony about deletionists and inclusionists arguing to delete or include an article about themselves. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've never actually read the Inclusionism page, so no bias here. Your observation that they're similar probably means the sources are doing a good job. The article better reflect the viewpoints, or else what is it for? –Pomte 00:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, please let's move this into the "Wikipedia:" namespace and be done with it. It's just not an encyclopedic topic, not by any definition of a "general knowledge encyclopedia" (such as Wikipeida aspires to be). -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Clearest, obvious delete as self-reference without any real-world notability. This is navel-gazing of the most obvious and blatant kind. Yes, we are all Wikipedians... so anything that has to do with Wikipedia seems overly inflated and important to us... but let's just step back for a moment and ask ourselves a question: is this really an encyclopedic topic? And the answer is no. Do you want to read, in an article in Encyclopedia Britannica, a description of some petty internal conflict between Britannica editors? No. Publishing these internal conflicts and controversies as if this was something that the wide world cared about, is an absolutely unacceptable exaggeration of one's imporance, that testifies to a grave lack of perception of the true scale of importance of things as they are in the real world. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • "as if this was something that the wide world cared about"?!?! Take a look at the article and the sources. Multiple independent reliable sources say that this debate is notable and has real-world importance. Apparently, the real world's "grave lack of perception of the true scale of importance of things" includes coverage of Wikipedia by such entities as USA Today, BusinessWeek, National Public Radio, and even Der Spiegel has covered the topic, as has Harvard Business School, all the textbook definitions of the "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." required by WP:N and abundantly satisfied. WP:ASR forbids references from Wikipedia's perspective and in no way excludes articles about Wikipedia. The irony only grows. Alansohn (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, if you really think that this topic is encylopedic, then how about merging this (or somehow incorporating this information) into the main Wikipedia article? Do you really think this deserves a separate article? As I said above, almost every popular website or internet community will have its own fair share of controversies; most of them only deserve a passing mention in the corresponding main articles. Just because this is Wikipedia, and this article is about something that has to do with Wikipedia, it does not mean that this really deserves coverage in a separate article. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I really do believe this is encyclopedic. An I really think this deserves its own article. Notability of the article's subject is satisfied. If you believe a merge would be appropriate, you are free to revise your vote to delete. I am more than happy to support additional articles for other controversies on other websites, as long as they can demonstrate a comparable level of real-world relevance and reliable sources. Alansohn (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I understand why people are uncomfortable with this article. I remain convinced that the article should stay, because it does seem adequately demonstrated that our internal processes have become the subject of controversy and discussion outside the internal forum. It could be argued that this is a case to invoke ignoring "notability" rules; editing controversies maybe shouldn't be made article subjects, even if they are subject to studies and opinion pieces by external sources. Still, plenty of articles already contain similar material. Part of some people's discomfort might be remedied by moving this to a more transparent title, like Controversy regarding appropriate content in Wikipedia. "Inclusionist" and "deletionist" are insider jargon, and it does sound a little bit like the war between Big-Endians and Little-Endians. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Sure there is real world context. Some of the news articles that talk about deletion debates, particularly of biographies, deal with the very notions of importance and notability, which are real world issues for the subjects (think BLP). For instance, 'Even those that defended Susan's Wiki-worthiness were harsh: "Seems notable enough. At least as notable as any other second-tier author or journalist." Ouch.' You know how much effect Wikipedia has, and yet inexplicably can't see it being compatible with ASR, which specifically allows for this type of article. A merge to Criticism of Wikipedia would be improper as it's not primarily a criticism, but an aspect of the community (read the sources). A merge to Wikipedia would produce undue weight given the available info that's essential to the issue. I am in the process of improving the article. –Pomte 22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • General comment. Many of those who have voted expressed their opinions above seem very familiar with many Wikipedia policies, such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N etc. I, however, very much urge everyone to step back, for a second, and just think about what this project is all about. It is about creating an encyclopedia of general knowledge. Yes, we do have rules and guidelines about what should be included and what should not. That does not mean that one shouldn't excercise one's common sense, at least once in a while. And the common sense clearly tells that the internal workings of the project, including the internal controversies, are just not important enough (or not "encyclopedic enough", or not "notable enough", whichever phrase you prefer) to be inflicted onto our audience. So, I urge everybody to consider: it this really notable? Or do you think this is notable only because you yourself are involved with Wikipedia? Would someone who is not involved with Wikipedia really think that this is a subject that is worthy to be included in a general-knowledge encyclopedia? I believe that the answer to all these question is "no". -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment You are totally ignoring WP:N in favor of your own subjective "I don't like it" standard. I suggest you go to WP:N and try modifying it, if it is not in accord with your perceptions of what belongs in an encyclopedia. If an article about a cartoon episode, a garage band, or a cell phone had references as numerous and substantive from such reliable sources, it would also be a "Keep." The sources cited in the article and discussed above are in fact external to and independent of Wikipedia, and they make the case for notability. (edited 22:19)Edison (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • It's true that in this case I think there's something else that is more important than WP:N, but it isn't "I don't like it" -- I have never said anywhere above that I don't like this article. In fact I would quite like it, in an appropriate place -- in the Wikipedia namespace. What I really think is that while this subject is important for us Wikipedians, it is just not an encyclopedic topic, in the wide world. It's just a particular controvery that has to do with a particular website. (I don't deny that this particular website is imporant, but every controversy about that website isn't). -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
        • WP:N says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." It does not say we should establish a subjective standard of what is or is not "encyclopedic." Edison (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
          • But we are trying to write an encyclopedia here. All the rules and guidelines are secondary to that. (Read WP:WIARM if you are interested -- and after all IAR is a policy.) -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Further, minor comment the title of the article doesn't even reflect the contents -- there's no mention of "Wikipedia" in the title. Apparently, whoever created the article just thought that would be obvious -- which, of course, just goes to show the over-inflated opinion about Wikipedia that some editors here hold. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment A redirect to a title including Wikipedia can be done when the AFD is complete, if it is kept. I agree it would be an improvement. The refs knock down WP:N as a reason for deletion. The fact that "inclusionism versus deletionism in Wikipedia" was precisely the subject given substantial coverage in each of the references demolishes the deletion argument based on WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. WP:ASR "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" and is not an excuse to sweep under the rug disputes and issues within the Wikipdeia community when they are discussed in major news media. Wikipedia is not censored to pretend that we are unanimous in all decisions about content. (edited 22:28)Edison (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes Wikipedia is not censored, yes there's no excuse to sweep disputes and issues under the rug, but likewise there is no excuse to inflate the disputes over what they really are, and to make them into encyclopedic topics when they realy aren't. As I said many times above, move this to Wikipedia namespace, and be done with it. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If you look at the history, the author described this as pertaining to all wiki communities. But hey, guess what, the sources found so far are about Wikipedia. –Pomte 22:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • OK. Clarifications are in order. At the time of nomination, the lead sentence read "The Deletionist versus Inclusionist Controversy is a case of factionalism within wiki-communities, most notably Wikipedia". Current lead sentence reads "Inclusionist and deletionism are opposing philosophies in Wikipedia" etc., which is slightly different. If someone can really demonstrate real-world notability of deletionist/inclustionist controversies in all wiki-communities, not just Wikipedia, then there may be something salvageable. However, if it's really only about internal Wikipedia mechanisms, than it's just navel-gazing, I'm sorry to say. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia is a huge information resource accessed by hundreds of millions; in that respect, the controversy is just as important as many others that exist within the Web space. *That* is the reason why this subject has garnered extensive media attention. If anything, the votes for deletion here are a form of bias based on the fact that it pertains to Wikipedia itself. (And for the record, I'm the original author of the article in question, and I did start with a broader definition of the subject--and I agree that the broader definition isn't well-supported by the sources; the article has already been improved in this respect, and that's precisely what should happen--not a deletion.) Tarinth (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Reply to Tarinth: (1) "Wikipedia is a huge information resourse": not exactly; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information; there are good reasons about which subject is encyclopedic and which is not; internal topics are not encyclopedic. (2) Regarding "broader definintion": I am aware that the original definition was broad, see my reply above. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
            • What does hair-splitting over the definition of it being an encyclopedia (true) versus an information resource (also true, by very definition of what an encyclopedia is) have to do with the subject of notability? Hundreds of millions of people access it, so the socio-political process that govern it become of interest to many people, just as any organization that touches the lives of so many--which is precisely why the LA Time, USA Today, etc. all thought it worth writing articles about. Deleting this article would simply be applying a bizarre double-standard merely because it deals directly with Wikipedia; any other form of factionalism that got that much media attention would easily qualify for an article on WP. Tarinth (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment The very day that USA Today, BusinessWeek, National Public Radio, Der Spiegel and Harvard Business School all write substantial coverage of any of us gazing at navels, it will become a notable subject for a Wikipedia article. See WP:N. Edison (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Ok, let's just be sensible... there are many notable websites out there. Google (of course), Microsoft, Yahoo, whatever... then there's MySpace and Facebook... and YouTube, of couse... and many many others... and ther's Digg... and flickr... and many more... <name your favourite website here> and suppose there's some farily minor internal conflict going on on one of these websites... does it deserve a separate Wikipedia article? Even if it gets some coverage in news sources? Let me tell you straight, not every news story is an encyclopedic article. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes, a significant controversy that is the subject of multiple international newspapers, magazines and broadcast media would qualify for an article, particularly for a subject like this that is likely to be a matter of enduring importance. WP:N and WP:V establish the criteria for notability, and this article is way, way, way above that bar. Tarinth (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
              • A controversy [37] [38] involving Google, Microsoft and Yahoo was their reported compliance with policies of the Chinese government which run counter to free speech. It received coverage and legislation in the U.S. is pending. Yes, that deserves inclusion either in the articles about the companies or in a stand alone article, if multiple reliable sources give it substantial coverage. And Google as well as Google News does not prevent people from reading articles which talk about Google and issues related to it. Edison (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
                • I wasn't about to complain further, but this just can't pass unnoticed. Surely you can't compare the Google/Microsoft/Yahoo/whatever conflict with the Chinese government (which raises the all-imporant questions of free speech, liberty, democracy, freedom of doing business, free trade, etc.) and a small, petty and entirely internal conflict between a group of Wikipedian "inclusionists" and Wikipedian "deletionists"? This sort of comparison makes absolutely no sense!!! -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
                  • Ekjon--this is just your subjective opinion on what you feel is important. I don't agree that this is primarily an "internal" (and apparently neither did numerous scholars or journalists). It shouldn't come as a surprise that the governance of the most popular non-profit virtual community in the world would be at least as popular as the legal issues surrounding government-to-corporate interactions. Tarinth (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
                    • Ok, but it's still our prerogative to organize information as we see appropriate -- sometimes something definitely deserves a separate article; sometimes, however, some information is not significant enough to merit a separate article, but definitely deserves mention in the main article. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, how about merging this content into English Wikipedia (note: not Wikipedia, but "English Wikipedia"). At the time of writing, all individual-language Wikipedias seem to have their own articles... and the current inclusionist/deletionist controversy is exclusively concerned with the English Wikipedia (other-language Wikipedias have their own inclusion criteria, their own controversies, and their own communities). But the "English Wikipedia" article is pretty thin at the moment... surely it could benefit from some well-sourced content! -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A discussion regarding that could be held once the AfD is completed. Are you now suggesting a keep? (For what it's worth, I think the article is too long and too specific to become simply a part of an article on Wikipedia in general, and the article also has information from at least one German source). The English Wikipedia article already has a practice of externally referencing significant controversies, such as the Seigenthaler_controversy. Surely a general article with the level of coverage this one has received should also have its own entry? Tarinth (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A merge is not the same as keep. I was never against a merge, in fact I advocated a proper merge in the beginning. The question is, what to merge to? Either Wikipedia (documenting wide-range controversies) or English Wikipedia (documenting controversies involving English-language Wikipedia) are acceptable solutions to me. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
To Tarinth: Look here, since you're the author of the original version, can you re-write the article in such a way that it clearly references different wikis in general and not just Wikipedia? If this controversy is just something within Wikipedia community then it's pretty minor and does not deserve a separate entry. If, however, this is something that is common to many wikis out there, i.e. in all wiki-communities there are inclusionists and deletionists, and there is a fierce battle between them, then perhaps you can re-write the article to document this? This would really be a big help! Because, in this case, the "navel-gazing" argument would not apply -- but it's up to you to provide the arguments and/or sources!!! Best regards, Ekjon Lok (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Dude, relax. The article has been undergoing major construction this entire time, and continued comments about your personal standards don't help. Come back in a couple of days. –Pomte 00:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yea all right don't worry! I'm willing to wait any time, remember there's no deadline. But, as it happens, it's not about my personal standards -- it's about my ideas about what is an encyclopedia! (I have no problems if other users have different notions -- I respect that.) Cheers! -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • What has been synthesized that is not stated in the sources? Is he really majority contributor (have you checked diffs)? I'm wondering how you have concluded that such problems can't be fixed. –Pomte 01:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem with this "logic" ( of "possible huge conflict of interest due to the fact that the creator and majority contributor is a self-labeled rabid inclusionist"), is that the article written by this so-called "rabid inclusionist" provides a rather thorough and well-balanced summary of the issue with dozens of real-world reliable sources. It's not writen from an inclusionist persepctive or from the deltionist view; it covers the topic using the ample reliable sources available. The far more logical conclusion of your concerns regarding editing philosophies being imposed by individual editors, would be that all votes from deletionists should be ignored at AfD -- here and at all other such debates -- due to their huge conflict of interest. Alansohn (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete yes it's sourced, but it's textbook example of a WP:SYNTH violation, as the article can't never go beyond biased original research. Secret account 01:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:SYNTH says " If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing." The sources cited in this article do explicitly reach the conclusion that Wikipedians include deletionists and inclusionists,as the article says, and they are all clearly related to the subject of the article, so this deletion argument is without merit. Edison (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - sure its controversial here, but there are sufficent WP:RS to make sure its tied to the outside world. If we are unsure of its significance, then I think it should be noted that this debate on it is now almost longer than the article itself! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • And that's a good reason for keeping? I don't think so. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC) To be precise, I was replying to the notion that "this debate is almost longer than the article itself" is a reason for keeping, which of course it is not. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It meets our notability guideline and has independent sources. I have some sympathy with the view that notability should be about encyclopedic and not about sources, which really only allow us to write the article. However, that is not in the guideline, so this should be kept. If the guideline is altered, which I do not see happening any time soon, it can be brought back here and deleted. The lead however should be widened from Wikipedia. There is already a reference to Larry Sanger and Citizendium. --Bduke (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • OK. You win. I give up. I will no longer be contributing to wikipedia. Good luck to all those who still have some patience left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekjon Lok (talk • contribs) 01:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not leave. Never will everybody agree with you; there is always somebody who does not share your views. But that does not mean you should give up. Be persistant! SeanMD80talk | contribs 02:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You're going to quit WP just because you can't get an article deleted that you want deleted? Threatening to quit is rarely a persuasive argument. Tarinth (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or move into project space, and merge into English Wikipedia or other articles. Note that I am typically an inclusionist, but these Wikipedia "philosophies" are hardly notable or well defined - a few mentions in reliable media and a few studies does not make it sufficiently important that we attempt to document internal dynamics in an encyclopedic manner. In my opinion, this is great content to be included in Wikibook 'Wikipedia'. John Vandenberg (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC) (The first rule of Wikipedia: Dont Talk About Wikipedia .. in mainspace.)
  • Delete self-referencing article which doesn't belong on the mainspace.--Jersey Devil (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, merge (and shorten), or move to projectspace. The first few sentences attempt to make it sound like this is a widespread wiki/internet issue but the rest of the article is all about Wikipedia. It goes into unnecessary detail about the mechanics of deletion discussions (AFD, DRV, redirecting) and some minor essays on meta. Mr.Z-man 03:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The only part of the article that implies the issue could be widespread is a phrase in the first sentence, and I added it only to potentially expand the scope based on comments above. The "unnecessary" detail provides context and is relevant to the issue; imagine a reader who doesn't know Wikipedia processes. Your labeling them "minor" essays on meta is not compatible with the attention put on them by reliable sources. –Pomte 16:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or move to project space. This isn't an appropriate encyclopedia topic, but I wouldn't mind it in the project space. Just because there are sources for it does not make it an appropriate encyclopedia topic, which IMO it is not. VegaDark (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to project space or delete. I can't see how this is notable. SQLQuery me! 04:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Anything covered by a number of respected media sources merits its own writeup on this site. For those who argue that this subject would not be covered in Encyclopedia Brittanica: If Brittanica were a compendium of nine billion pages and counting and was constantly updated every second of every day with news events from all over the world, then I'm pretty certain this subject would be covered. Just as I can't imagine Brittanica covering something like that, I also can't imagine a Brittanica comprising nine billion pages. Wikipedia is not your typical encylopedia. --Mynabird (talk) 09:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, if Britannica sparked a controversy that garnered international media coverage in reliable sources like USA Today, the LA Times, Der Spiegel, National Post, Business Week, The Telegraph, The Inquirer, IDG's CIO magazine and the Washington Post; plus scholarly research on the specific subject from Harvard Business School and the Journal of the American Society of Information Science -- not to mention the tens of thousands of posts on the very subject within the blogosphere from sources as noted as TechCrunch on down; then I'd say that yes, in that case a Britannica-related controversy would be notable enough for an encyclopedic entry. (for those who are still confused with what constitutes notability, I recommend reading WP:N so that you may present a better argument on what you feel constitutes notability or "encyclopedic content" that is unaffected by your subjective judgments on what you like or find interesting.) Tarinth (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • On the record, "Britannica does not suffer the same issues and criticism, but I suspect this is due to their selection process happening behind closed doors."[39] –Pomte 12:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The Mergism Viewpoint. This debate should probably either be a) covered in appropriate article(s) on Wikipedia, its community and criticism of thereof, or b) expanded to cover more of the debate, and also expanded to cover our other "isms". Since the other isms probably do not generate media debate and these articles generally seem oh so horribly navel-gaze-y, I think the choice a) is more appropriate. However, I'm not terribly against keeping the article as is; I just think merging is probably more fruitful. This is not about a single incident, but rather an issue that has been, and will be, an integral debate, and as such covering them in articles about the site is justified and right. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's any consensus on where it could be merged to. The article is now fairly longand distinct (significantly improved relative to the AfD, which happened while it was still in the process of being built...) The article is not about criticism of Wikipedia. The fact that these factions exist is well-documented and has received significant attention. This article explains the fact of these factions, the controversy, the background, and significant cases within the media. Even if there was an appropriate place to merge it, we're quite far from consensus on where that would be--and that would best be done in the talk pages of this article, and the talk pages of the potential targets. It certainly wouldn't fit in a "Criticism of..." article, and if placed in the main articles on Wikipedia or English Wikipedia it would take up too much space (although a brief synopsis with a link to this article is entirely appropriate, similar to how the Wikipedia article currently deals with the Seigenthaler_controversy.) Tarinth (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A merge into English Wikipedia would be anglocentric; consider all the links to meta and the non-English publications. –Pomte 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, how about my usual chainsaw-mergist viewpoint: Merge but cut the long-winded explanations. (An extreme illustration: "Inclusionists do blah[1], deletionists do bleh[1][2], there's a giant debate between these two viewpoints and it leads to a bunch of problems like zat[2][3], bleh[1][4], and qoof[1][3][5].") It's one possibility. But I definitely don't think the fate of this article needs to be decided now; We could just leave it here and maybe it will get fixed later. (Unless The Immediatists Attack® =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Go ahead and chainsaw a version, but I've tried to be concise. The Immediatists are attacking; notice the implication of comments here that this article can never be encyclopedic. –Pomte 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Hey look, and inclusionist voting keep. :-). Seriously, it's well sourced and important. Hobit (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep - Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum. This has demonstrated far more real-world notability than hundreds of fiction articles. —Random832 18:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - If this article wasn't about Wikipedia, would there be any question at all? -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If the article wasn't about Wikipedia, would it even exist? LondonStatto (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedia's very foundation is the precept that anyone can contibute. Deleting this article gives support to deletionists who wish to remove articles based upon thir own personal opinion of what belongs or does not belong without going through this very process to await consensus. The very fact that the article is here in Afd means that the processes that make Wiki just what it is CAN work if given a chance. This article is itself extremely useful in illustrating that process and in explaining the points of view. It does not in itself support one side or the other... simply explains the controversy. As a newcomer, I appreciate learning the views and values of both sides of both sides. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • But if I didn;t edit Wikipedia, why would I care about that? Those are all excellent reasons for this to be a Wikipedia-space essay, not an article. Mr.Z-man 02:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
      • That argument doesn't make sense on three levels: first, it isn't an essay. Second, people who don't edit Wikipedia apparently care about it a lot (I'd invite you to survey the source material). Third, any topic can be described as "only of interest to people who [do something]" but that's never been a criteria for deletion. Tarinth (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep has independent, reliable sources which is the basic criterion for inclusion. For those who cite WP:ASR and those uncomfortable about seeing an article about Wikipedia, see WP:WAWI.--Lenticel (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I heard about this first outside of Wikipedia. If real world sources decide this WP controversy has enough real world notability to write about, who are we to say different? As an impartial news source, it's not arrogant or self-centred to report on when WP is being talked about. Failing to do so would be a strangely coy ommission of our duty. Though, I do agree it should be renamed "Wikipedia's Deletionist versus Inclusionist Controversy" as this article is primarily about WP. The Zig (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as blatant Omphaloskepsis. LondonStatto (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Beyond the fact that WP:OMPHALOSKEPSIS is not a valid excuse for deletion of any article, Omphaloskepsis is the act of staring at your own navel = dog bites man = non-notable. When more than a dozen major national and international media organizations write articles covering the details of your belly button = man bites dog = that's notable. Alansohn (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep If people talk about us, we're notable. If they talk about important controversies here, and think they're important, so they are. Our refusal to recognize this is COI. We're behaving like a subject of a bio who would prefer that nobody talks about him, because he's embarrassed at being notable. It's just a selfish as the other way round. DGG (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but it needs cleanup and deletion of unsourced statements.Trilobitealive (talk) 06:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Unsourced statements? This is perhaps one of the best-sourced articles that exists, with 28 references and citations for nearly everything (and things that aren't directly footnoted are rather well covered in previous citations already). Tarinth (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I found the following: "The Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians and the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians were founded by administrators.[9] Each has a page listing their respective members, charters and principles." Neither assertion was supported by any online, easily accessable reference. I'm not able to immediately verify the source cited for the first sentence nor the real online existance of the factions so don't know if the second is WP:FACT, WP:SYN, WP:HOAX or what.Trilobitealive (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The citations are right there. For the first one, it's on page 16. For the second, page 25. These page numbers are clearly documented in the citations, and both are online in PDF format. The second one is French, so you can use the translation device of your choice to verify the statement. –Pomte 18:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. I can see the documentation of the assertion. But where is a plain language statement in the text that the associations are found on the Wikimedia.org and not the wikipedia.org site? Why isn't there a link similar to Association of Deletionist Wikipedians in the article? Do you see my point or not? Being a relative newby and entirely ignorant of this controversy before this last Thursday I find this most confusing. I may have to go back and edit the article to correct this.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Most definately Keep.
    Firstly, I would like to respond directly to the WP:CRYPTIC nomination rationale.
    WP:NOR
    The article is supported by a huge block of external references. It cannot be purely original research.
    WP:N
    Again, many other sources have written on the subject. The issue is notable.
    WP:SYNTH
    The section of WP:NOR referenced by this particular WP:GLYPH discourages the use of external sources to support an opinion not supported by, or contrary to, the original sources. As no opinion is advanced by the article (AIM:AFAICT), this cannot be a novel synthesis.
    WP:ASR
    This article obviously references Wikipedia, but it does so in an observer-neutral context. By this, I mean that the article does not refer to Wikipedia in a way that cannot be used outside of Wikipedia. If I were to take this article and post it on any other website, it would make just as much sense and would carry the same meaning. It does not contain any troublesome self-references.
    Secondly, I would like to respond to what I think might be the nominator's unstated rationale. Wikipedia is a significant player on the Internet and genuinely impacts the world as a whole. What may look like a trivial spat within Wikipedia really does affect the world outside of Wikipedia. The genuinely trivial events and the transient tilts in consensus can be largely ignored, but the larger motives which shape Wikipedia hold significance beyond Wikipedia.
    Lastly, I would like to echo the sentiment that the article in question is borderline WP:CRAP. It sorely needs improvment. Then again, it hasn't been around long enough for any significant development. For a three-day-old, it's pretty damn good.  — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 15:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per MichaelQSchmidt, DGG and Bigwyrm. But be clear, and alter the title to make clear, whether it's about English Wikipedia, or Wikis in general, or what. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to the project space Yes, we do have various issues with regards to either keeping or deleting stuff. However, I do not feel this is a topic we can cover yet in a manner that isn't just Wikipedia centric and navel-gazing. I like the suggestion to put this in the project space, and maybe give about one or two sentences in articles about the English Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, but cut it down a good deal to resolve issues of original research. This has received significant news coverage and attention, so it is definitely notable. If written properly, it can avoid self-references, so this should be a reason for cleanup rather than deletion. And in response to the nominator's reason for deletion, have you read WP:CAPITALIZEDGIBBERISH? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, but clean up Splette :) How's my driving? 02:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, but re-scope to a more general title, like Philosophy of Wikipedia or something like that, which ought to include any observations made by the mainstream press regarding the perceived strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia's content policies, guidelines, and internal rhetoric. "Self-reference" is a misnomer here, one which is safely avoided by covering a topic, one relating to ourselves, with the same indifference as we would any other topic, and with the same indifference any other project would cover a topic relating to us, and by choosing our pronouns very carefully. — CharlotteWebb 18:35, 28 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 04:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tuvalu (band)

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

Seemingly non-notable band. Creator declined prod on the basis that they have multiple, non-trivial media references. These are yet to be found. tomasz. 14:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep: Just because you don't know a band doesn't mean it isn't known somehere else. (And I'm not the creator of the article.) Deletionists for the win and so on... FYI, Tuvalu's records have been reviewed in many major Finnish print magazines, but as you don't know them so there's probably no point for me to try to defend my position. Reading your userpage, you have been called "trigger happy" before, maybe you should take that criticism to heart.--Wormsie (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Yes, i have indeed been called "trigger happy", by people who've made articles on non-notable bands that have failed WP guidelines and subsequently deleted after other users agreed. If that makes me "trigger-happy", i'm glad to accept the label. Incidentally, "this band is notable but i can't be bothered explaining why because i don't like your stance" is not a particularly convincing argument for "your position", if you indeed do have one. WP:AGF is in no way applicable. Oh and the band will still need legitimate sources to substantiate why they are notable. Cheers, tomasz. 18:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment: I don't know WHAT should be written about the band - they have played live gigs, released two albums that have been reviewed by major (print) music magazines and newspapers in Finland. What else is there to ask?--Wormsie (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Note: It's tough to find much information about the band, seeing as all the information's in Finnish. Even though it's a bit tough to locate additional information, I think it's worth keeping the page up so that as new information is found, it could be added to the article so there's actually a place for the information on Tuvalu in English. (also, is there a more convenient way to add replies in these talk pages? - i just edited the page directly) --coder11235 14:41, 25 January 2008 (EST)
  • Delete or Transwiki to Finnish Wikipedia I was going to try to put the band up against WP:MUSIC, but I can't. All the references are in Finnish. I don't speak Finnish. This is the English Wikipedia. Without English references, I cannot support keeping this article here. DarkAudit (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Your personal inability to understand the references has no bearing on the notability or verifiability of the article. I have difficulty understand many references given for articles about mathematics, even though I have studied the subject at undergraduate level, but that doesn't mean that I demand their deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply If one cannot verify the sources, then the sources are useless. To the majority of users of the English Wikipedia, these sources are not verifiable because they are not in a language they can read. There are no translations provided, so for the English Wikipedia, these are not enough. DarkAudit (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. English-language sources woould be brilliant, but this being the real world we can't always get what we want. As a result, I'm prepared to accept on faith that the Finnish sources say what they're claimed to. That said, there aren't a great many independent sources, so I'd suggest that more of these would be helpful. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes verifiability policy and notability guidelines with multiple references from reliable sources. Policy is explicit that sources do not have to be in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment The policy also expects that there are translations made available for readers who do not speak the original language to be able to verify the sources. That is not the case here. DarkAudit (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Note the phrase "assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality" -- if this case does not qualify, I don't know what does. The article is an absolute mess, though. Someone needs to translate that babble into proper English. --Anon 67.187.38.109 (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC. Policy (WP:RSUE and WP:BIAS) is very clear that references not in English are valid (although finding some English language references or providing a translating would be valuable too). I highly recommend editors read or re-read WP:BIAS. Bondegezou (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Bondegezou. The mind boggles as to how many articles would be deleted from WP simply because of non-English reliable sources being used. --Russavia (talk) 20:45, 31 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 deleted as attack page. Acroterion (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shaylee

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

Contested prod; removed by anon IP without explanation. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or collection of descriptions of slang terms. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Er... page was deleted under CSD. Nevermind. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:38, 23 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, suggesting to actually add the found sources to the article. Tikiwont (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boyband (New Zealand band)

Boyband (New Zealand band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There is a host of issues with this page. First is verifiability, searching google for boyband along with 'new zealand' - some links do come up relating this band to some sort of contest winner, but I'm not sure if I see any reliable secondary sources. The page attempts to show notability by them being the winners of some sort of show, but I'm not sure how accurate that is. The band's website is a dead link. Let's see if anyone knows more about this and if it should stayGwynand (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm ready to withdraw this, but before I do, could someone produce a better link to the #1 hit reference? It looks legit, but these links seem a little questionable. That being said, assuming this band had a # 1 hit (even on New Zealand charts, which notability I am not sure of), I think the page can stay, with the page being tagged with a few templates to encourage improvement.Gwynand (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've added a citation to a newspaper in Christchurch, The Press. Their single did indeed debut at #1 in October 2006. I find it a little hard to believe myself! --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I mean, radio contest winners here? It's an unusual way to create a band, but are they notable yet? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Notable not because of the contest, but because they had a #1 hit on a national chart. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'd say they're notable enough. Dan LeveilleTALK 19:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - as above StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - oh and RIANZ is the better site to find the #1 that Boyband did indeed have, however you can't link to individual pages on the RIANZ site. Also, and this will contradict myself, the band members aren't as notable since the bands one hit eg Chris Murray ("Mummy's Boy") lives in Rotorua and still works for McDonalds. Though he did cause a fuss when he was outed (on Bebo of all things), however the Edge (the radio network that did the contest) was adamant that they only had one gay member (which wasn't him but "Gay Boy"). (Sorry I can't find the link). As for the rest, they disappeared faster than a New Zealand Idol contestant... which is normal for New Zealand celebritydom :) StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with the above, the charting pretty clearly meets WP:MUSIC. SorryGuy  Talk  07:22, 29 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. Although this article currently has sourcing problems, a sufficient number of wikipedians felt it should be kept. Interested editors are encouraged to continue to search for sources. JERRY talk contribs 12:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whitespace (programming language)

Whitespace (programming language) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Esoteric programming language. I have not been able to find any coverage in reliable sources for it. Most coverage seems to be in blogs, and Google Scholar returns no results at all for "Whitespace Programming language." [40] Snthdiueoa (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - Yes it's a bizarre language, BUT it is a valid and explicit representation of language definitions, range of programming language, and compilation. It was made as a sort of joke, but it does have meaning within the community. Just because it looks useless doesn't mean that the theory behind it, and its existence, is useless too. It's also Turing complete, IIRC. You wouldn't go deleting the 'Java' page, just because some people deem it an overly basic and clumsy language.Dancraggs (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - interesting and noteable exactly because it is esoteric. Nobody codes in it, I think, but it is a kind of "look what's possible" item that should remain precisely due to the curiosity value. --213.191.86.14 (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but WP:INTERESTING is not a valid reason for keep. Wikipedia policy (WP:N) need to see non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Snthdiueoa (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: I too am having a hard time finding a good source of information. Interestingly, this article has equivalent articles on German Wikipedia, French Wikipedia (which is weird, because we don't create a lot of articles "just 'cause" in French) and a few more languages. But again, these Wikis don't have any sources either. Makes me wonder how notable this programming language is. • Supāsaru 21:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • For prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming language related/Detail. Uncle G (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I wasn't aware of the previous discussion: there was nothing about it on the article's talk page. However, none of the arguments in it address the issue at stake: there is no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Snthdiueoa (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

here is a link to whitespace http://compsoc.dur.ac.uk/whitespace/

  • That's a link to the whitespace home page. It's a primary source. I'm looking for reliable secondary sources which is what is required to justify the existence of an article on Wikipedia. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are programs written in Whitespace on the WWW. Besides, in what way are the sources for Whitespace (programming language) any more or less reliable than those for the Brainfuck programming language? –Peter J. Acklam (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm asking for reliable secondary sources such as newspaper articles, peer reviewed research papers, and so on, where Whitespace is the main subject. There don't seem to be any -- only non-notable blogs. If I'm wrong, please point us in the direction of some such sources. Snthdiueoa (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know if it has any formal coverage, most of these estoric languages don't, but it does have a description at http://compsoc.dur.ac.uk/whitespace/ and there does seem to be an article at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/31/1048962694949.html covering the topic. It is an interesting twist on the conventional idea of a programming language, as most languages ignore whitespace. Again there is not much formal academic references to the topic, but it is covered by multiple 3rd party sources including newsgroups etc, whether or not this widespread discussion of a concept is enough for wikipedia I don't know. Cheers! LinEagle (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slartibartfast

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

No assertion of real world notability. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Provisional keep as a major character in a well known sci-fi series. The article needs references and sources, but I don't think these should be too hard to find. Snthdiueoa (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The only source "outside" of the fictional universe mentioning Slartibartfast in a substantial way is a book about the fictional universe. Saying sources "should(n't) be too hard to find" is far different from finding them and adding them to the article. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree wholeheartedly, so I've changed my recommendation to provisional keep. We'll just see what people manage to come up with. However, if nothing of substance turns up, then I'd say redirect to The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Snthdiueoa (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That rationale has no basis in our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. We delete articles for being unverifiable, or original research, or impossible to expand beyond stub status, or for having no independent sources available anywhere that cover the subject in depth. Questions of assertions of notability only apply to speedy deletion, and even then don't apply to this class of article, only to specific classes of article. This is AFD, not speedy deletion. Please provide a proper rationale that is firmly based upon our deletion policy. If you are going to assert that the subject is non-notable, show what legwork you did to determine this — where you looked for sources and what you found. If you just assert that something is non-notable, without showing that you lifted a finger to look for sources to see what existed, then the closing administrator can quite reasonably reduce the weight given to your opinion. Well-researched rationales that are based upon our policies and guidelines have weight. Bare "I think that it's notable/not notable." assertions have not, and are of little use to a closing administrator. See User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving rationales at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Policy states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material....If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Correct. And you haven't shown that no reliable third party sources can be found, as I've already pointed out. The onus is on you to show that you looked for sources and couldn't find any. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, per the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, per Wikipedia:Notability, and even per User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage, you must put the effort in look for sources yourself before nominating something for deletion on grounds of verifiability or notability. So go and do so. Your nomination rationale as it currently stands is flawed and does not hold any water. Rationales that aren't backed by actually putting in effort and doing the necessary research will be given little weight. Uncle G (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment I cannot show that third party reliable sources do not exist. However, a scholar.google.com search has 48 hits: all are brief quotes, snarky naming options for bits of code and such. None are about Slartibartfast. A generic google search turns up, of course, 90 bazillion hits (OK, 192,000). I have no intention of checking all of them. From the first 10 pages of hits, I've determined that roughly 10% of net users have the handle "Slartibartfast", UNIX coders name algorithms "Slartibartfast" and h2g2 has a lot to say about Slartibartfast. Oh, and there are a few movie reviews that mention him as well. I have been completely unable to find any reliable sources about him, other than mentions that he exists in the books and the movies. Given that official policy says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I have no intention of proving that the pile of unsourced material is actually supported by articles from the New York Times, JAMA and a Ken Burns documentary on this character. As "no reliable, third-party sources can be found" I am of the opinion that "Wikipedia should not have an article on it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdsummermsw (talk • contribs) 18:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, significant character in well known book series and films. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep A "book about the fictional universe." is exactly the sort of real world source which is necessary, Thats the basic criterion. (Given the extremely great importance of this fictional work, there will certainly be others) If you think a book with substantial information about the character isn't sufficient. just what sort of a conceivable source do you think would be sufficient? DGG (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment How about Ohio Historical Society, University of Massachusetts Press, The New York Times, Duke University Press, The Journal of American Culture, The Times, San Francisco Chronicle, MSNBC, Time, Johns Hopkins University, that kind of stuff. Or Smithsonian Institue, USA Today, United States Senate, and such. Maybe a little University of Illinois Press, Populism: The Humane Preference in America, 1890-1900, American Literary History, American Quarterly, Journal of American Culture, The Slavic and East European Journal, University of Kansas Press, Journal of Political Economy... that kind of thing. Those all seem to be third party sources. I don't feel that DON'T PANIC - the official Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy Companion is reliably "third party". - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, he's a major character from a prominent book that's been adapted to radio, TV, and the movies. That's enough real-world notability for me. If enough sources aren't currently in the article I'm sure they'll be added in the fullness of time. Bryan Derksen (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment So an article on the whale who thinks "Oh no, not again!" is in the makings? Not every character in a notable work of fiction is notable. Notability is not inherited. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep Major characters from major fictional series are notable and routinely pass AfDs. Here is a good, fairly recent example. This is a complete waste of time. faithless (speak) 19:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Major enough character with a history behind his creation. Besides, with a name like Slartibartfast, it has to be good. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Some actual sources were just added by Faithlessthewonderboy. A nice improvment, though it's still no Tin Man. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Not a Tin Man yet, perhaps, but per policy it doesn't need to be. The variety of references is enough to demonstrate notability per WP:FICT. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep My only comment in addition what everyone else has said is that the criteria for reputable sources must change as we go back in time. A minor character in the Harry Potter universe or The Simpsons universe can claim justification for an article due a large number of Google hits. The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy was most popular in the 1980s and the start of the 1990s, so one can't expect there to be as much about it on the Internet. --RenniePet (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep A major character in a major work, one that has various incarnations in radio, TV, print, and film. Further, the article itself is almost entirely from a real-world perspective, listing which works he appeared in, what actors played him, and some of the creator's thoughts--with no long fancruft recitations of his participation in those works. This is the direction an article on a fictional character should take, and the information would be awkward to place in the main H2G2 article. --Ig8887 (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep possibly one of the most well known fictional characters there is. Comes from a major novel which was also a tv show, radio show, and major motion picture. -Djsasso (talk) 22:52, 23 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. JERRY talk contribs 00:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BoyBand

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

Makes a claim to notability (has been on TV) but may still fail WP:MUSIC. Doesn't have an entry on the All Music Guide which is extremely comprehensive. No sources cited and the generic name makes searching for sources difficult. Searching for t4, boyband, popworld produces nothing referring directly to this group. If nothing else, fails WP:V at the moment and quite possibly WP:N as well. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - I did a brief search and NOTHING comes up on this little thing called the internet. This may be due to the tough search term of 'boyband' which is so generic, but even with qualifiers I didn't see anything. Definitely doesn't appear notable, certainly not verifiable. I know this isn't scientific... but the picture of the "band" looks like a hoax picture. The entire entry could be a hoaxGwynand (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. I'd also like to recommend that if the article is deleted, the title "BoyBand" should be redirected to boyband.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - OK, this is weird. Look here, its lists another band just called "Boyband", which originated out of New Zealand. Nothing comes up for this band either, the page also looks like a possible hoax (dead links for band page, nothing coming up on google). Even if not a hoax, looks like verifiability issues. Not sure if these pages are at all related, but neither look good. Maybe that one should go up for deletion as well.Gwynand (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Clarification - I meant that "BoyBand" is not a hoax, and "Boyband (New Zealand band)" is not a hoax either. For sure.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:54, 23 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Big Fat Wah

Big Fat Wah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Doesn't even have an entry in the All Music Guide which is extremely comprehensive. Only claim to notability is this. I get under 150, and about 23 unique ghits. Ghits for the name of the only song they are known for are even less numerous. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Only source of notability is a Youtube video. No All Music Guide entry, under 25 google hits. Totally NN Doc Strange (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, the YouTube video is a tape recording of something that was broadcast on television in 1991 - but that in itself does not make this band notable.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
That makes them even less notable, as nothing's happened to them in the past sixteen years to make them any more notable. That video has just 1,443 views, which isn't enough for it to be considered even a small internet meme (even if it was, it was still be NN). There's no sources about the band on the page or virtually anywhere else on the internet. They still fail WP:MUSIC either way. Doc Strange (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This band is not an internet meme in any way whatsoever. Just a non-notable one-off pop act who had a brief television appearance, I think.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I never said they were. I said that even if they were an internet meme, they'd still be NN, and that 1,443 views on Youtube doesn't make them notable. They're just a band. They only appeared once - briefly - on a NN show. Doc Strange (talk) 20:46, 23 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 appropriate content to one or both of two possible target articles. Specific action to be discussed by interested editors elsewhere (I suggest: Talk:Baby Fozzie). The result of this AfD therefore is a default keep for now. JERRY talk contribs 03:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baby Fozzie

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

No stand-alone notability. Certainly not for the baby version. Poor writing, unreferenced original research, and third-party reliable sources that are not trivial are unlikely to exist.

I am also nominating the following related page:

Baby gonzo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Very little of this content actually looks like it's worth merging. Maybe like one sentence describing the existence of baby fozzie.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Possible merge: not that Muppet Babies doesn't have issues of its own, but it seems that might be a likely location for the Muppet Baby characters rather than that of their "parents" Travellingcari (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge: While the main Wikipedia has an article on Fozzie Bear, there is a lot more reliable information on Muppet Wiki's verison of the page. I think it's more notable to have it on the Muppet Wiki because that place is mostly muppet-related. The main Wikipedia could have anything. So along with Starblind, I would probably say merge. SchfiftyThree 01:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Muppet Babies - Insufficient independent notability. - JasonAQuest (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Muppet Babies. I think the characters' existences should be mentioned on the Fozzie Bear and Gonzo pages though. matt91486 (talk) 04:49, 31 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 article sourcing. Keeper | 76 21:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glasgow Rowing Club

Glasgow Rowing Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 12:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There is very little Glasgow Sport information in Wikipedia and almost nothing about rowing in Glasgow. The history of the sport in the city is the clubs. Currently only GUBC is listed. GRCSecretary (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - was speedy deleted before. The current form is still the same as the previous one. Dekisugi (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and Salt. Hopeless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can't say that I think this is worth keeping, but I don't think it should be salted just yet. That's too extreme.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys, you don't give much encouragement. When I look at 'Glasgow - sport' the picture is all wrong. As long as you stop entries dead in their tracks, so it will continue.GRCSecretary (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't see any difference intrinsically between the Glasgow article and (e.g.) Molesey Boat Club GRCSecretary (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree that GRCSecretary has a point (but also a WP:COI from the username). This should not be speedily deleted, let the AfD run its full course so that third-party sources might possibly be found. See WP:N.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. GRCSecretary does appear to have a conflict of interest, but he makes a valuable point. This club and the ones that proceeded it have a long history and appears to be an important rowing club in Scotland. It needs sources. I have asked the opinion of the good folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rowing. Perhaps they can add the sources which seem very likely to exist. --Bduke (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I nominated this article for deletion due to lack of sources. It should ride out its AfD period to give the original contributor as well as other users more time to come up with their history and notability through WP:RS. If enough sources are presented and they are verified, I intend on withdrawing this AfD nomination. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 02:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Rowing clubs are very important in the sport of rowing. Many clubs have members at all levels, from national squad through to novices. That being said I do not know much about this club. Mark this article as a stub and give it time to develop. 09er (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I just spent a few minutes (a little more than the 2 minutes that the nominator took between article creation and AfD nomination) to look for sources and found some more notable successes of this club, with reliable sources from the Sunday Telegraph and the Sporting Life, to add to what was already in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - How does it violate WP:ORG? Stating this does not make it so. I don't know what it was like when you made the nomination, but it has received coverage in reliable secondary sources, and is certainly an organisation of worthy of note in the UK rowing scene, hence I cannot see how it fails the criteria. Fame is not a precondition for notability. Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    To view an article's history, you may click the "history" tab of the article. Please keep your comments civil and WP:AGF. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 09:38, 25 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. Wizardman 18:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Isaby

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

Nominated for WP:PROD but the tag was removed by an IP address. I do not think this meets the criteria of WP:N. Notability seems to come from being deputy editor of a Telegraph column, having been chairman of a university society, a researcher for the BBC and an author and founder of an 'informal drinking group' (which only seems to be mentioned on blogs). It is also full of unverified facts WP:V and weasel words WP:WEASEL - while these alone are not enough to justify deletion a tidying of the article would leave very little left. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete while all fine accomplishments, there's nothing here that makes him all that notable. Are there any awards that he's won? Has there been any reliable, verifiable, and independent coverage of the subject? Are there any sources at all? DarkAudit (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons of notability (or lack thereof).--Scotchorama (talk) 13:44, 24 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 g1, obvious nonsense (medieval knight named "Joshua Banerjee"). NawlinWiki (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua Banerjee

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

Unsourced, tons of unlikely claims, can't find anything about any of the other people mentioned in the article maybe a hoax? VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 12:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, unverifiable, zero G-hits. Prod should have been given a chance to work, however. Accurizer (talk) 12:38, 23 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 02:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Emory

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

This article is largely unreferenced conspiracy BS. Five references are included, and it's doubtful whether any one of them constitutes a reliable source. Two references are to a book published in 1981 by Paul Manning; as far as I can determine, Emory himself is not even mentioned in the book. Then there are references to Emory's own website, and to some fringe filmmaker who is allegedly making a documentary about him. A large portion of the article reads like spam. I put a prod tag on the article and it was removed by an anonymous editor. The last AFD verdict was to keep the article but remove various policy violations. That hasn't happened and there is no evidence it ever will. This article appears to be owned by a handful of conspiracy nuts. *** Crotalus *** 12:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Note The AFD notice was removed almost immediately by an anonymous editor. I've reverted it. *** Crotalus *** 12:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - after the last AfD, I thought I'd fixed it with several over a dozen edits. It appears to have been the subject of vandalism. It's someone else's turn. I don't own this one. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep--This is interesting. Someone--"Crotalus Horridus"--who declines to use his or her real name moving to delete an article about a syndicated talk show host, whose work has been on the air in Los Angeles, New York, the Silicon Valley and a number of other places for decades. After removing references to Emory from mainstream publications such as "The Washington Post," the Anonymous Ones claim that there are no mainstream references to Emory's work. Odd. Deleting references from mainstream sources and then claiming that no mainstream sources recognize him is revealing of the focus of the critics. "Rattler" might do a Google search on Emory. The filmmaker working on the documentary has excerpts from another work about Emory available. It is not an "allegation." Later--Farstriker

  • Keep -No just cause for deletion. This is a bio page of a living person. Abundant references to Mr. Emory in the mainstream press were provided last time the page was up for deletion. His racket is public radio & conspiracy theory, just what kind of 'reliable sources' did you expect Crotalus? Also his name is Dave not David. Haters keep your wigs on. -chipdipkkill- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.202.141 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep — His sources are given in the programs. Since his programs deal with public figures and events, you can use such resources as Facts on File, newspaper/magazine microfilms, and of course everything you can access via the World Wide Web to check his assertions. Bandy (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep — And since this is the 2nd deletion attempt and the guy has been on the radio for multiple decades, and there was also a lengthy list of major publications that mentioned Dave Emory over the years in the 1st deletion attempt page, perhaps it would be useful to reprint that list so that the advocates of deletion can directly address:

Here's what Peterhoneyman already listed:

He is quoted in this NY Times magazine article.
The Washington Times suggested he was the inspiration for Mel Gibson's movie Conspiracy Theory
  • Head, Tony. "Real life conspiracy theories that inspired Mel Gibsons new film", The Washington Times, 1997-08-29, p. 60. Retrieved on 2007-11-04. 
He is quoted in another Washington Times article
  • Scarborough, Rowan. "Hate broadcast from left wing often overlooked; Some urban stations full of venom", Part A; Culture, et cetera, Washington Times, 1995-05-03, p. A2. Retrieved on 2007-11-04. 
This one is particularly apt
  • Strachota, Dan. "The plot to get rid of Dave Emory", SF Weekly, 2001-11-28. Retrieved on 2007-11-04. "Dave Emory [is] one of the nation's foremost chroniclers of fascism and governmental funny business." 
Here is an article about a ham-fisted attempt to silence Emory
  • Zinko, Carolyne. "Airwave Pirates Block Show Foothill College", Peninsula Edition, San Jose Mercury News, 1996-04-30, p. 1B. Retrieved on 2007-11-04. 
This article has a couple of paragraphs devoted to Emory
  • Thomas, Kenn. "Clinton Era Conspiracies! Was Gennifer Flowers on the Grassy Knoll? Probably Not, but Here Are Some Other Bizarre Theories for a New Political Age", Outlook Section, The Washington Post, 1994-01-16, p. C3. Retrieved on 2007-11-04. 


Here an additional article:

  • "JFK Conspiracy", City News Service. August 21, 1997. This article involved a 1997 JFK conference Dave Emory was a speaker at. The ADL was protesting this particular conference because of some of the anti-semitic nature of some of the speakers, including Michael Collins Piper. Piper refers to Emory as his "ideological adversary" in that article, and it mentions that the two often fight at different JFK conventions:

Also, the 2nd story referenced by Peterhoneyman, "Real life conspiracy theories that inspired Mel Gibsons new film" (where Dave Emory is said to be the 'most obvious' real world inspiration for Mel Gibsons character), was also printed in the Scottish Daily Record. So add international news references to Mr. Emory's CV.

The folks that continue to push for the deletion of this entry need to address the numerous publications that have mentioned his work. --Newsie23 (talk) 03:49, 30 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.--Kubigula (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GéNIA

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

Delete NN musician Mayalld (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC, almost a speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Albums on major label (Black Box Classics) satisfy WP:MUSIC. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't find a website or any other information that tells me Black Box Classics is a major (or otherwise notable) label. Doesn't meet any other part of WP:MUSIC. SingCal (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Weak keep After a bit more searching the Black Box discography leads me to believe that it's just under the WP:MUSIC umbrella. I guess that means this artist is as well. SingCal (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep sources provided establish notability per WP:BIO in general and WP:MUSIC in particular. Alansohn (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Alansohn. Bondegezou (talk) 19:02, 26 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, merging might still be an option, but would need further discussion.Tikiwont (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of New South Wales railway station codes

List of New South Wales railway station codes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This topic has no notability as it is unknown outside a narrow interest group and has no particular importance or impact. It is unlikely to be of interest to a general encyclopaedia reader, and the codes are already individually listed on railway station pages Quaidy (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy close - a couple of users (including one I almost never agree with, but in this case I do agree with) are currently in consultation about the future of this page (most likely a merge into the list of stations page for Sydney and another page for stations outside the metro area. The creator of this page acted in response to a comment I made to him in relation to stupid comments he made on another page, and his response is immediately to try to delete this page. It's bad faith and not in the spirit of the discussion we are having. If for some reason that's not an acceptable way to end this debate, then Strong keep/merge as per our discussion (which was heading towards that anyway). The codes are in use for general passenger information (it's not "just a narrow interest group" as the nominator wrongly suggests, and there needs to be somewhere to put these. If it's on the stations page, I'm fine with that, but deleting this page serves no purpose other than to spite me. JRG (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep/merge A list of railway stations in a given sub-national unit is quite encyclopedic; though, with the capacity for sortable tables, we don't need a separate list article for every potential sorting of railway station data like "List of New South Wales railway stations by date of construction", "List of New South Wales railway stations by population of catchment area". Instead, they can all be put into a single list. cab (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge hopefully to a single list with a sortable heading row.Garrie 05:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep this badly needs some references, but the article is probably OK. If there was a List of railway stations in New South Wales or similar I'd vote merge. The article's statement that the codes are "commonly [used] on public timetables as destination codes" is correct and is a broader claim of notability than the first part of the sentance ("They are used in CityRail's internal workings") which suggests that the article is train-cruft. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and incorporate codes into List of Sydney railway stations seems to be of a better solution imo. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 14:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Not all of the stations in the list are in Sydney. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep on pretty much exactly the same basis as Nick Dowling. Orderinchaos 16:11, 27 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 05:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accountability mechanisms in local governments in Kerala

Accountability mechanisms in local governments in Kerala (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Essay-style article on rather arcane topic. Dougie WII (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See other related articles by same originating editor:

Comment: I have moved these discussions here as they are substantially similar. There may be one or two comments on the old discussion pages which have been lost, but I have moved the pages to the oldest discussion which had the most comments. Apologies if one or two contributions are missing, but I felt this was the most efficient way to discuss the articles. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - I originally tried to PROD this article. I agree it should be deleted. Reads like an essay. It's synthesis of other research makes it original research and the lack of in-line referencing means that it cannot be determined what is OR and what is cited research. Parts of it could be incorporated into Kerala. Gillyweed (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. "The purpose of this paper is to examine those accountability mechanisms existing in the local governence scenario in Kerla. ...", violates WP:NOR. Sandstein (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. non-encyclopedic political instruction manual for a local administration somewhere on Earth `'Míkka>t 22:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't delete This is an important debate for a country that is home to 1.2 billion people. While I agree that it is not in the Wikipedia format, and contains original research, deleting it would be a drastic way of tackling its current inadequacies. --59.95.19.251 (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and encourage editor to contribute to existing articles such as Decentralization (have done so on his/her talk page.) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please examine objectively before deletion

Please make an objective examination of the article before deleting the articles. I am the largest collector of books on decentralisation in India and can say authoritatively that the contents are undisputed facts and not personal perceptions. Many of the points are from official government records. As well, my ignorance of editing made it imperfect. I can make it better by learning the editing techniques. Regarding references, I can attribute innumerable.

See for example the reference list in the Kerala Decentralisation : Problems and Prospects, those problems are mainly consolidated on the basis of a study by Institute of Rural Management, Anand - a most respected institution in the country.

K Rajasekharan, Creator of the article

NB :- I donot know writing my original name infringes the rules of Wiki. If so, kindly excuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajankila (talk • contribs) 12:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Unencylopedic essay, reads like somebody copy-pasted their homework into Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Original research/synthesis. May I also recommend:
  • Panchayat Feminism at the gram panchayath in kerala (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
    ...being bundled into this AfD as it appears to be from the same stable? --WebHamster 16:00, 23 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. Cheers, Keeper | 76 21:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Salzburg Forum

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

Unsourced, no indication as to what the topic in question is about, maybe OR as well? VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 10:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - perhaps CSD A7 (non-notable website). Also due the WP:MOS issue that I cannot grab the meaning of the bulk text there. Dekisugi (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Changed my opinion to keep per late improvement of the article. Dekisugi (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or reduce to stub - it's a political forum, rather than an internet forum. Whilst it could be a viable topic for an article, this huge block of text appears to be bulk automatic translations from the various pdf files that are externally linked. Unsalvagable and has possible copyright problems. Marasmusine (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Despite the lack of style, the group itself seems to exist and be of some importance. It's called Forum or Group depending on the source, but I'd call government records spanning multiple countries pretty reliable sources. Serious, serious trim and rewrite. Pairadox (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm afraid the bulk text is a copy paste from somewhere so it might breach copyright infringement. Anyhow, I will change my vote to keep if there are some reliable sources given there. Dekisugi (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Note that I just skimmed the sources for relevance to the topic; I didn't check them against the text of the article. As Dekisugi mentioned, it's pretty difficult to get through. Pairadox (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - This article doesn't breach copyright I am the co-author of it with one of my intern. The material was collected and the article was written by me and by her. I work for a Hungarian civil liberties NGO, you can check out the NGO at www.tasz.hu page. As the Salzburg Forum (or group) is a quite secretive co-operation in Europe, but has some influence on EU justice and home affairs, the only way to get to know more about it, seemed to me writing an article and publishing on wikipedia. I could collect material only in three languages and due to the non-transparent nature of the co-operation the outcome is bit like a mosaic. However, the contributors of the wikipedia might be able to put together the missing mosaics to form a reliable picture. As I am a beginner wiki contributor I believed that posting the core text and a bit later completing it with the references might not cause any problem. Foldes (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. A very quick search for sources finds references at [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] and many more. The article simply needs to be edited, not deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per obvious reliable sources found by Phil Bridger and concur with the article needing to be edited not deleted. --Russavia (talk) 20:40, 31 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; much improved from the COI version.--Kubigula (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Tobias

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

Autobiography, it seems claim to notability is mostly based on films, but aside from IDMB listing them, I see no indication of their notability (IDMB contains almost no information on any of the films ... or even user comments, Google doesn't turn up much more). Scott.wheeler (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's still pretty rough around the edges and I consider it a threshold case for notability. If it survives the AfD some more cleanup would be appreciated. And usually, yes, barring convincing evidence, my goal is to flush articles people have written about themself (even moreso if they're poorly done). Scott.wheeler (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Then you may consider revising your approach. Even if an article's current condition is unacceptable (POV, COI etc), this is no grounds for deletion, but for improving it. Iff reliable, third-party sources to demonstrate sufficient notability and to verify basic information cannot be found should an article ever be deleted. User:Dorftrottel 13:19, January 24, 2008
  • For the same time and effort spent disrupting Wikipedia with this AfD, our nominator should have done the basic research that Wikipedia:Deletion policy requires be done before the mad dash to AfD, and made the edits the policy mandates to address any concerns, which would clearly have obviated any justification for deleting the article. That these obligations appear to have been ignored raises significant questions regarding this AfD, and other nominations that may not have been addressed in accordance with Wikipedia:Deletion policy. One of Wikipedia's policies is to flush editors who fail to observe this fundamental policy. Alansohn (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for assuming good faith and all. I'm not new around here and I feel like it's pretty clear from my nomination that I don't believe that this entry meets WP:BIO. A non-notable award, some non-notable books and a bunch of non-notable films don't add up to notability. I tend start off more skeptical in the case of autobiographies and the first several pages of Google hits don't turn up non-trivial sources, hence me not being convinced. As the only two sources that were since added are subscription-only, and presumably Mr. Tobias wasn't reading them when writing about himself, I still believe that a deletion debate is justified. Scott.wheeler (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You described yourself as having not just an interest, but a "goal" in flushing content, hardly a description of good-faith editing activity. That you are not new and yet are still so unfamiliar with your obligations under Wikipedia:Deletion policy -- which requires a good-faith effort to research notability, edit, improve or merge content before pushing for deletion -- only raises even greater cause for concern. While you are still utterly convinced of the subject's non-notability, a cursory search finds dozens of sources on Tobias, dozens of which are non-trivial discussions of Mr. Tobias and his work. The material in the sources in the article establishing notability is in the sections of article text available even to those of us without a subscription. Even if the links provided were removed from the sources, the articles would still stand as clear evidence that the real world media disagrees in the clearest possible manner with your dismissive snort at this article. While your WP:AUTO issues may have had validity before other editors such as myself came along, you are forced to deal with the article as it stands. As it stands, notability is established. Alansohn (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Look, I'm not sure if you took my original comments personally or what, but please try to adhere to wiki etiquette. I appreciate the work that you've done to bring this article further along, that's great. It could use some more. Please try in the future to word your disagreements more respectfully. For example, the comment just above yours said basically the same thing, without being inflammatory. While we could keep arguing over the semantics of flush, cursory, non-trivial or good faith it's beyond being relevant for the present discussion. Suffice it to say, if there is anyone else reading this far and debating registering their opinion I'd encourage them to do a quick search themselves, keeping in mind that most search results for Michael Tobias refer to others by the same name. Scott.wheeler (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep sufficient documentation. it wasn't all that difficult to find once someone took the trouble to look. DGG (talk) 05:56, 26 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 06:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tesalonica Clemente

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

non-notable finalist of a Philippine musical competition. Google searches say that she didn't develop notability afterwards Lenticel (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete no evidence of WP:N. JJL (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. She didn't even appear on GMA Network's variety show SOP Rules after the competition, a sign of career hiatus (as if she has a career). Starczamora (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete should have been speedied per A7. --Veritas (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Unnotable TV contestant. --Howard the Duck 04:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I didn't speedy because being a finalist in a nationwide contest "might" be an assertion of notability (and fanboys might become angry with me for not giving them a "fair fight").--Lenticel (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply - Believe me, the fanboys are no match to the inclusionists. --Howard the Duck 05:16, 24 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. Wizardman 18:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Solaufein

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

Disputed prod and prod2, with the reasons "Non-notable fictional character" and "This article fails WP:V, WP:FICT, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF." Procedural nom, no opinion as of now. UsaSatsui (talk) 08:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and note that the prods were removed by an anon that was very likely one of the hoard of IPs associated with the sock-vandal User:Grawp (anon was reverted, too); see: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Qwerty of Man. The article is non-notable and unsourced plus misses on all the WP:s listed by the nom. --Jack Merridew 08:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per prod. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was the original prodder. This is a non-notable fictional character because too few out-of-universe, third-party references exist to sustain a meaningful Wikipedia article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of Baldur's Gate characters; definitely not a major character that needs an article of his own. Curious that I ran into this deletion debate, as I was just thinking of this character today (though I remember him only from the fan-made Neverwinter Nights mod, and I didn't even finish playing it. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge Per Wwwwolf. There is a minor character article, so use it. Hobit (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per prod. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:59, 30 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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Backyard Wrestling Federation

Backyard Wrestling Federation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. Prod raised questions about whether or not this was a hoax, with no google hits or sources. I'm inclined to agree, and at the very least, there's no proof of notability. UsaSatsui (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete seems like a hoax. Pookakitty (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.139.5 (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete either a hoax or mind-numbingly non-notable (as backyard wrestling invariably is). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No google hits? no sources? It's either a hoax or something that was made-up one day. Proclaims to have been featured on a History Channel program on backyard wrestling. One big problem: The History Channel never showed a program about Backyard Wrestling. Doc Strange (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MADEUP. No sources, no dice. meshach (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT, unless we get sources we can only conclude this is a hoax. Gwernol 20:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. Even if it was real, it wouldn't matter. In the dozens of bakyward wrestling feds i've seen nominated since joining Wikipedia, all have been deleted (which I support) as the consensus seems to be that backyard wrestling feds are not notable (samething with individual e-feds, e-feds are even worse since they are nothing more than online role-playing whereas backyard wrestling is real). TJ Spyke 09:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - and I could have sworn that this has been deleted before -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:35, 26 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 Shoreline School District. Whether, what, and where to merge is, as always, an editorial decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Room Nine Community School

Room Nine Community School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable community middle school. Shortage of RS to establish importance and notability. Wisdom89 (talk) 07:48, 23 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 School District 43 Coquitlam. Canley (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cedar Drive Elementary School

Cedar Drive Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable elementary school - importance not explicit, and searches do not reveal anything noteworthy. Also, talk page might indicate WP:COI. Wisdom89 (talk) 07:00, 23 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 all that have been merged to Canada Wide Media Limited. Tikiwont (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AnimalSense

AnimalSense (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
Appeal Magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Bark! (magazine) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
BCBusiness (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Granville Magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
PeopleTalk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Soar Magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
TV Week (Canada) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Westworld Magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Westworld Alberta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Westworld Saskatchewan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
BC Approved Accommodation Guide (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
99 North (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Waters Magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
BC Restaurant News (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Grocer Today (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Burnaby Board of Trade Directory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Mineral Exploration Magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Truck Logger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Numerous articles on non-notable magazines published by Canada Wide Media Limited. I suspect the creator of all these articles and of Canada Wide Media Limited, Matthewt123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), is affiliated with the publishing company. I have merged the content of the articles to Canada Wide Media Limited and suggest the magazine articles be deleted rather creating an excessive number of redirects to the company. Jfire (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Redirect to preserve edit history per GFDL, and so that people looking for info on the magazines are taken to where the information is. -- saberwyn 19:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Saberwyn; GFDL requires an old article title that's been merged into a new one to remain in place as a redirect, in order to retain the edit history. The only valid way to get rid of the magazine titles would involve deleting Canada Wide Media Limited as well. Bearcat (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Bearcat. GreenJoe (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Bearcat. Redirects don't cost a penny. Franamax (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment 99 North has already been merged and redirected to a different article. Franamax (talk) 03:41, 29 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, patent nonsense. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 12:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Digital marxism

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

Original research / neologism / nonsense. "Their effort redistributed to charitable projects" - what does that mean in the context of social networking sites? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. “Original research” and apparent attempt to promote a neologism. —SlamDiego←T 08:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Drivel. --Folantin (talk) 10:21, 23 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. Pegasus «C¦T» 15:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IPling Inc.

IPling Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article was up for speedy deletion but the speedy tag was removed; the entire article has a promotional tone and reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. KurtRaschke (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11, blatant advertising: . . . iPling was launched in January 2007 by a group of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs with a track record of innovation at leading companies. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've been following iPling and have made several edits to the posting to give an objective third party perspective of what they are doing.--Jess Hodges (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:35, 26 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.--Kubigula (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Extraordinary Adventures of Jane Arinton

The Extraordinary Adventures of Jane Arinton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:HOAX. Googling yields zero hits. I can't find any information linking the author to anything even related to the topic. Article fails WP:N and WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Kamek (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Zero google hits--even after I alter spellings and try different ways to find it--is a bad thing as far as existence goes.Gwynand (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete yet another hoax Doc Strange (talk) 17:29, 23 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 with hopes that the young child will want something different for Christmas next year :-) (see comment #3). Cheers. Keeper | 76 21:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Piraka

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

Another contested prod Original research essay about a non-notable fictional group of characters. No real world context and all sources are primary. Ridernyc (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As mum of child who talks - apparently - complete gibberish, the article was very useful to ensure I bought the right Christmas present - very important! I now have some idea what hes been going on about! 19:42 UK time 24th January, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.220.237 (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete disagree, as includes information on a Real life product ToonPenguin (talk) 18:41, 25 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. JERRY talk contribs 00:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roodaka

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

Another contested prod Original research essay about a non-notable fictional character. No real world context and all sources are primary. Ridernyc (talk) 05:25, 23 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. JERRY talk contribs 00:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Muhammad

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

Was speedily deleted before AND had an Afd discussion going at the time in which all votes cast were for "delete". Not enough significant changes by parties without a conflict of interest have occured to justified inclusion. Is not notable, and the article appears to be nothing more than a vanity project. DJBullfish (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

CommentThe article is most likely being primarily edited by either the subject itself or a personal assistant or friend *of* the subject. DJBullfish (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 07:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per previous deletion could probably be speedied; fails WP:BIO notability. Snocrates 23:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Greswik (talk) 20:24, 29 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 - the current machine translation was WP:CSD#G1 patent nonsense. The foreign language version has been moved to the appropriate Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] De ludo tactione

De ludo tactione (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Content duplicates Tag (game) Meyer (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional discussion at WP:Pages needing translation into English#De ludo tactione. -- Meyer (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Great! Now we're getting macaronic articles in a combination of English and Dog Latin. At first, I thought that this might be the result of running some text through an English-to-Latin translator and then back through Latin-to-English, but it actually appears to be an original composition. In any event, redundant to Tag (game) with nothing to merge. Deor (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete but transwiki a version from the history. The original article's text was at least comprehensible Latin:

    Tactio est ludus consuetus infantia. pueri ubicumque in orbe terrarum ludunt tactionem. prositium cavere non tangi a iusore. Unus luor est 'id' sorte. ceteri lusores currunt procul ab lusore qui est ‘id’. lusor qui est ‘id’ venatur alium lusores qui, si tangitur, fit novum ‘id’.

    (Roughly: "Tag is a customary childhood game. Children everywhere throughout the world play tag. The goal is not to be touched by the player. One player is "it" by chance. Other players run nearby, away from the player who is "it". The player who is "it" hunts other players who, if they get touched, become the new "it".)

    The original text may well be transwikiable to the Latin Wikipedia, if no comparable article is there yet. It will require editing for style and grammar there. Someone there will get to it, in temporis plenitudine. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Heh. I forgot to look at the article's history. That's one bad machine translator (although the typos in the original Latin didn't help). Deor (talk) 17:40, 23 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 nominator and clean-up on the article. Pastordavid (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ghana national college

Ghana national college (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Can't really tell what's going on here, but it's definitely unsourced, the last paragraph appears to be a violation of WP:NOT#SOCIALNET, and the rest looks like a copy of http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Campus/5017/school_history.html. KurtRaschke (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The article is also extremely poorly written and the style doesnt comply with Wikipedia article standards. - Ravichandar 05:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete: Unencyclopaedic. As per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY.-Ravichandar 05:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep and admonish nominators to not use Afd instead of cleanup tags. I've stubbed and referenced it. The school is clearly notable and an important part of the Ghanan (spelling?) independance struggle. Rated as a top school for the area, lots of material to write or reference it - Peripitus (Talk) 06:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems to meet even the strictest interpretations of secondary school notability by the independence conflict stuff. matt91486 (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - After the edits by Peripitus, the article now exists as a proper, well-sourced stub; as such I am inclined to withdraw my nomination. Can someone close this as speedy keep or take whatever other action may be necessary? KurtRaschke (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - since the nominator has said it should be speedily kept, can someone close it? matt91486 (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - independently sourced to meet WP:N. A significant high school, with the significance sourced. TerriersFan (talk) 18:11, 24 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. Redirect can be made if someone wants it that bad. Wizardman 17:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bell Intermediate School

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

Non-notable middle school. Most of page consists of non-encyclopedic content (including upcoming events, schedule, grading criteria, etc.), while usable text constitutes about two sentences. Recommend Delete Dchall1 (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment I have to go to bed but i will work more on the article tommorow —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinrichs (talk • contribs) 04:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I am working on this article to make it more encloypidiac. I have taken out the class schedule and am putting in more vauable imformation that make it more like an encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.16.181 (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

what do you mean by "redirect"

Redirecting will mean that the article when viewed will be Redirected to the district's article. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 01:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay you can do that but i dont know how —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.16.181 (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I could find nothing online that would make this school notable. Kingturtle (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, if it can be determined that "the band and orchestra won the first place grand prize" then it might be notable. Kingturtle (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Find out what is written on the awards. That would help us find references for them. Kingturtle (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus


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

The result was Keep.

The article as it is now is clearly a copyright violation from http://www.everestpeaceproject.org/dvd_film_overview.html. As is This version. This other version is fine and will be moved to mainspace to replace the current copyvio version.DO11.10 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Everest: A Climb for Peace

Everest: A Climb for Peace (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

nothing here michfan2123 (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. There WAS something there, but someone deleted all the content when putting in the copyvio notice before an admin could look at it and make a judgment. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment when an article is a copy violation you're supposed to "replace the contents of the page with the {{copyvio}} tag" etc per WP:COPYVIO. --ImmortalGoddezz 04:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed you are, but you are then supposed to leave it like that to see if someone can write a notable article without it being a copyvio. If they can they then ask an admin to install it in place of the copyvio. There is no good reason to delete this at this point. --Bduke (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • See the talk page. I made a non copyvio less spamy (+ more references) version a while ago and mentioned it on the talk page. It's just been sitting there waiting for an admin to look it over. :) I'd forgotten about this article honestly or I would have brought it to an admins attention. --ImmortalGoddezz 20:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looking through the history, there appears to be some notability for this documentary. Orlando Bloom's involvement is interesting, but the reaction from the Dalai Lama is significant - and has been covered in secondary sources. I think there is an article here, but it needs to be brought to a stub and built back up with sources, not copyvio. Also, since when is a Wikipedia Infobox a copyright violation of another site? Surely that could remain, at least? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I nominated it for deletion. Even if there was something there, it is apparently copyright infringement. michfan2123 (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I had explained previously that I was the copyright holder...nevertheless, since someone indeed deleted the page - I decided to rewrite the entire page so this would not be a problem anymore (see the "temporary subpage" that I re-wrote) and so that should not even be an issue at this point! - And so please approve this new rew-written page and make it live once again. 24.20.122.223 (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Lance Trumbull
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Narziß Ruiz

I think this is a hoax. All the pictures on the article are not of him and it seems very unlikely that a 21 year old would be a notable philosopher so early in life. This appears to be a difficult case so sorry if I am wrong. Captain panda 03:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The photos were temporary. This is the first article I've created, and I was just trying to figure out how to post pictures. More information on his philosophy will come when I have more time, I find it very interesting. However, I just wanted to get down some biographical information on this student. Semiology (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom clearly not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Completely unverifiable, and a lot of the details look fishy. ß isn't a letter used in Spanish names (it's rare even in Germany), and the City College of San Francisco doesn't offer a program in philosophy. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Ridiculous that people are marching around with their torches, it seems to me this is a blind, unfounded, and overdone. Wikipedia torchers are not compassionate to the manner of trial and error concerning how to create a page on wikipedia, and they don't even read the entire article before they start to argue their vast understanding of names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semiology (talk • contribs) 06:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Blind, unfounded and overdone what? And how about addressing the more important issue that the college you named doesn't exist? Don't get angry because you got caught in a hoax. JuJube (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, the college does exist. The problem is that they don't offer a philosophy major - indeed, as a community college, they don't offer any bachelor's degree programs. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article as currently written looks like a hoax -- such as describing the subject as a Spanish philosopher without having ever lived in Spain, and having him adopt a name containing a letter used only in German (eszett) without having ever lived in a German-speaking country. Furthermore, his name generates zero Google hits, which is very low for a contemporary college student in the United States. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as a vanity article. No evidence that any serious philosopher takes his musings seriously.

Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems fake at worst, and self vanity at best. Delete if fake, and delete as not notable. If author can prove publication then keep.Pookakitty (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - Just to point out to you, even if we did find publication, it wouldn't do much in the way of establishing notability. This would mean 99% of college professors in the world would suddenly break the wikipedia threshold of notability. Just something for future reference.Gwynand (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • If having written "numerous critiques" is sufficient to show notability, most college students would qualify. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Either a hoax or a nonnotable junior-college student. I'm curious about the "concept of entrails and apparitions," though. Sounds rather icky. Deor (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Typically dumb schoolkid hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom, now per wp:SNOWBALL. Is there anyway to keep a history of his page somewhere for the sake of comedy. I really did enjoy reading it.Gwynand (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax, nonsense. Lawrence § t/e 00:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, rather than a social-networking website. If the subject of the article actually ends up writing books and so forth, he'll probably eventually qualify as notable. Until then, he hasn't actually done anything of note and therefore doesn't get an article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the criterion now. Thank you BigHaz. I can't figure out how to delete the article. Semiology (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Regular users can't delete articles, although now you've indicated that you believe it should be deleted, I would imagine an admin will delete it shortly. Before anyone says it, I can't use my admin powers here, since I've contributed to the discussion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:26, 25 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 between keep and merge, certainly deletion is not the consensus. However, I am redirecting to List of pigs because all the material is currently there. Mangojuicetalk 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of pigs over 1000 pounds

List of pigs over 1000 pounds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A pointless collection of facts about animals that are only united by weighing a lot. Tavix (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't get confused by the title. They're all notable, and they're all pigs. That's enough to keep them together. That they all weigh over 1000 pounds is a bonus. For a suggested solution, see my !vote below. The Transhumanist 08:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per trivia. Marlith T/C 03:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey, that's pretty funny! But, yeah, you're right. Delete per nom. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak DeleteDelete or Merge: That's quite informative and well referenced. Anyway, I feel it needs to be deleted as per WP:NOT#NOTABLE.-Ravichandar 05:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, but I do agree this is pretty funny. The notable examples of this elite group already have articles of their own, anyway. 23skidoo (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: The form of classification is pretty funny and unencyclopaedic. Animals could be classified by species, genus and other similar forms, but I dont think a list of pigs by weight is required. Also it isnt a big deal that someone has discovered a pig which weighs 1000 pounds or more. You cannot call that a notable achievement worthy of being recorded in an encyclopedia. -Ravichandar 07:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with List of pigs - They're all notable and belong on a pig list. Too bad they didn't clone these mothers. See also:
  • Merge with List of historical pigs. —SlamDiego←T 08:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed Marlith T/C 15:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge the cited porkers with List of historical pigs, though I'll be sad to see something so wonderfully odd go. Hopefully merging will still qualify the article for Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Nomination is just I don't like it. Article seems fine. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree, Colonel Warden. SeanMD80talk | contribs 13:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: I agree that the nomination does read like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. The porkers are sourced as notable, and a good part of their notability hinges on their size. That sounds like a defining characteristic to me. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is ace and I see no point in getting rid of it! Skip1337 (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Deleteper nom statement, which is basically what I said when I prod'éd the thing. The nomination is not an IDONTLIKEIT argument, listing together a collection of pigs (incidentally one of those pigs over 1000 pounds didnt even weigh that much as per the article) because they weighed a lot is an unencyclopedic clasification better suited for the guiness book of records. ViridaeTalk 21:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of historical pigs per User:The Transhumanist--Lenticel (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge Complete. This article can now be redirected to List of historical pigs when the AfD closes. Tavix (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: I endorse Tavix's merge work here. —SlamDiego←T 11:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Question What name would sound best for the article? A lot of the pigs are fairly recent so historical doesn't make much sense. I am leaning towards either List of pigs or List of notable pigs.Tavix (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply: “List of pigs” invites misunderstanding, and good faith attempts to list every pig who ever lived. (Although I would love to see a list of Every Pig Who Ever Lived, it would belong elsewhere; not on Wikipedia.) —SlamDiego←T 08:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • NOTE I have moved List of historical pigs to List of notable pigs. Since the merge, a lot of the pigs arn't exactly what you would call "historical". Tavix (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • FURTHER NOTE - moved List of notable pigs to List of pigs. "Notable" in titles is superfluous. The Transhumanist 09:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      • As I explained above (in a comment that Tavix deleted), this will prove problematic. I expect the title to eventually again refer to notable pigs or somesuch. —SlamDiego←T 10:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorry, SlamDiego. I didn't mean to delete your comment, just wanted to edit mine. Tavix (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Why not? Whilst it is an incomplete list, it is interesting to anoraks like me. Traveller [by sea]. 20:05 UTC 27 January 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.60.216 (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge the merge is already done, and the results looks acceptable. --Salix alba (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep would have been fine, but Merge is okay too. Hobit (talk) 02:22, 29 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 transwiki to Wikibooks. Action has already been performed. Justin(c)(u) 16:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Structure of Atlas Shrugged

Structure of Atlas Shrugged (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There is no significant structure of Atlas Shrugged. Since it is just a three part novel with thirty chapters I see nothing very special about it. I believe that this soft redirect is unnecessary. Marlith T/C 03:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I would also like to note that this article began as a plot summary of the book. Which is redundant to the main article. Marlith T/C 03:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • delete. This could be included inthe article on Atlas Shrugged, if it's worth doing. However, is AfD the right place for this nomination, or should this go to RfD? Argyriou (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is basically just a ToC. If there is some notable novelty to the structure of Atlas Shrugged, this article gives no indication of such. —SlamDiego←T 08:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Page has been moved to Wikibooks, and is being soft-redirected. No reason for further action at AfD. -- RoninBK T C 20:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment still, would you think that this is unnecessary. Marlith T/C 01:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Redirects are cheap, and there is a GFDL to consider... -- RoninBK T C 22:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and speedy close - it's now on wikibooks, deletion would be a GFDL-vio. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --Oxymoron83 06:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List Film Scores with Solo Piano

List Film Scores with Solo Piano (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Arbitrary conjunction of two non-related items. Why not List of films with oranges on the table? Corvus cornixtalk 03:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as trivia. Marlith T/C 03:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Marlith. KurtRaschke (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above. SingCal (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 17:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: the article was moved to List of film scores with solo piano. There are currently two redirects: List of Film Scores with Solo Piano and List Film Scores with Solo Piano. I suggest that all three be deleted per above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy M. Wang (talk • contribs) 15:23, 27 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/weak keep (keep on a vote count, no consensus anyways). Non admin. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nakor

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

I doubt very much that this fictional character is notable in itself. Of course, there already are articles about the author and some of his books. Goochelaar (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what counts as 'notable' for a fictitious character, but he is a major character (in the top 3 in importance) in the Riftwar series. Marjaliisa (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge it with the Riftwar article? I've never heard of either but if the primary article is noteworthy and it is true this character is important, shouldn't it be included there? --Revanche (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 03:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an important character and should not be deleted outright. I'd be happy with a merge but am not sure of the best target. I'd probably suggest Midkemia, since Feist has written books in other settings. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge info belongs somewhere. Major character spanning multiple series of books.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep major series, major character, the reviews of the various parts of the series will talk about him, and basic sourcing is appropriately from the works themselves. DGG (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems that the arguments of those who are in favour of keeping the article are of the form "This is an important character". Agreed. But is it notable? Every novel has one or more major characters, but very few of them are notable in themselves, out of their story. I mean, a fictional character might well save the universe, in his world, but out of it, if no independent sources have covered it, it is not notable. Goochelaar (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-worldnotability. In addition, this article fails WP:V, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF, so there aren't any arguements for keeping article. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Major character in major series. In response to Goochelaar, I think that WP:N/WP:FICT doesn't represent consensus on this issue. As those are guidelines AfD is where consensus is, in part, determined. I think "major character major series" holds consensus as something we should keep here. Hobit (talk) 02:27, 29 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genki Dama

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

A ridiculous level of detail ... an article devoted to a single attack mode in one anime series? No third-party reliable sources at all, either. Kww (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge into or redirect to Son Goku. Fails WP:N without "reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Some of the content, however, should be folded into the parent subject. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per Roehl Sybing. Be very specific about what gets kept and what gets trashed. JuJube (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge into Son Goku. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have examined the target article Son Goku, and can't see the difference between a redirect and a merge in this case. The target article contains Goku's most powerful attack is the Genki Dama, a sphere created by gathering chi energy, which he also learned from North Kaio. What more information does an encyclopedia need about a special attack?Kww (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge or redirect Merge or redirect per above. Earthbendingmaster 22:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of notability in the article. If any independent, reliable secondary sources do exist I do not think that they will be easily found in a reasonable timescale. Guest9999 (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge what is mergeable. This is the sort of detail that is certainly not worth a separate article. I agree with Kww that this is not encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 16:30, 26 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. JERRY talk contribs 17:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deregowski's cross-cultural study on perception

AfDs for this article:
    Deregowski's cross-cultural study on perception (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Unreferenced stub on an academic study, with little more than a bald statement of the conclusion, and not much detail on anything useful. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Rename and rewrite We do not normally include articles on individual scientific studies unless they are very important. The author himself, J. B. Deregowski, Univ. of Aberdeen, is in fact known for a variety of related work, and might be worth an article: 116 articles in Web of Science, the most cited cited 69 times. I have not tracked down the particular experiment being referred to, it may be BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 59: 195 1968. I note that neither the author nor the nom apparently actually looked up the study, or the scientist, even in GS. My guess is the the article is a note from a class lecture. DGG (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete or Merge into Perception. It is difficult to understand why this particular study is worth an article. (Oddly, even the study, itself, is not referenced in the article. "Pictorial perception and culture" (1972) from Sci. Am. 227:82-88, is an easy version to locate, but Deregowski published a number of papers on the topic over the years.) No evidence of notability is provided. Tim Ross·talk 12:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete as insufficiently notable. — Satori Son 15:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Terribly written is not a valid reason for deletion. (Though I wish it was, personally..) Wizardman 17:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Allanah Scully

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

    Article is terribly written, but makes a claim of notability for sure and is not totally orphaned. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Keep - terribly written to be sure, and now tagged with {{fansite}}, but she has the starring roles in a 26 episode television series which meets notability bar. See this imdb entry. Article does need sources, but based on a cursory search, these should be findable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:58, 23 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 to Lord (band), action complete. JERRY talk contribs 15:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Andrew Dowling

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

    The article does not assert the notability of it's subject via reliable sources. Note: If this can be fixed in a timely manner, I'll withdraw the AFD. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete or possibly redirect to Lord (band), which seems to be his only real big project. SingCal (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge/Redirect as most sources refer to him as bass player with LORD and not a lot else. •Florrie•leave a note• 11:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:58, 23 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. JERRY talk contribs 03:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] List of Swaminarayan articles

    List of Swaminarayan articles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    A list of topics in alphabetical order is completely redundent by a category Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

    • have deleted the category - hence the criteria for proposed deletion no longer exists Wheredevelsdare (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
      • no, the category still exists: Category:Swaminarayan sect of Hinduism. What is the reason you prefer to keep this list over using the category? (or that you would even prefer to delete the category? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Well i misunderstood wht you were saying. Now I get you. The list is required as there as lots of pages such as Nara-Narayana and Akshardham (Philosophy) which are related to Bhagwan Swaminarayan, but not in the category, Swaminarayan sect of Hinduism. Such articles can be placed on the list - which is a very preliminary one at the moment. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
          • They can also be easily placed in the category. Just add the category with the other ones at the bottom of the article. See WP:CAT Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
            • There are some articles indirectly related to the topic. Articles, such as Aarti are on Hinduism on the whole (Not only the Swaminarayan Sect), hence it would not be appropriate to put these articles into the category - but they can easily be put on a list. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. Whether or not a redundant category exists is irrelvent. According to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, they can co-exist harmoniously. The proper place for this discussion is Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes to get the guideline changed, not to nominate for deletion lists that conform to the current guideline. RJC Talk 00:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • They can co-exist if the list has info different from the category, which this doesn't Delete Secret account 02:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    Delete. Catogorizing will have exactly the same effect as this list. Pastordavid (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete The present list is just an list of the articles in alphabetic oder, and is no more useful than the category. DGG (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete all. JERRY talk contribs 01:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Emirates Airlines awards and accolades

    Emirates Airlines awards and accolades (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    These articles fail WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#ADVERTISING. All of these articles are sourced only to the airline's PR department. A mention of 1 or 2 of the awards in the main airline article is sufficient; we don't need sprawling lists of airline-related PR on WP. Russavia (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they too fail all of the above:

    Malaysia Airlines awards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)--Russavia (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    Singapore Airlines awards and accolades (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) --Russavia (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per Jpatokal Tavix (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete not a good topic for a stand alone article. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment A related article Singapore Airlines awards and accolades, is not a standalone article. It is an extension from this statement in the main Singapore Airlines article: "Singapore Airlines have received numerous awards and accolades for the standard of service it provides. It claims to be "The World's Most Awarded Airline".".--Huaiwei (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment Then all that is required is a ref link in the main article, not a whole new article sourced only to a single source; that being the PR department of the airlines concerned with this Afd. Additionally, as the article is in the WP mainspace, it is in fact required to fulfill the same policies that any article is required to follow. These are not lists which are useful for red-link article development, but crufty PR/advertising lists. --Russavia (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Very Strong Keep - I feel that the Emirates Awards and Accolades article has the potential to be a concise list which can be of use. I feel that the feeling of PR is overblown and is more in the mindset of individuals heavily involved in the editing of articles related to airlines, rather than from a neutral person who just happens to steps upon the Emirates article and wants to find out more. Despite this, the standard of the article should be upgrade to that of Singapore Airlines' - if that is not done in 30 days then Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanceOfTravel (talk • contribs) 23:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment If the Emirates article is up to the 'standard' of the Singapore Airlines, it shouldn't be kept, but removed even quicker, due to the Singapore Airlines article being cruftier, and still all sourced to only a single reference; the Singapore Airlines PR department. Also, don't remove the Afd template from the Singapore Airlines article, as that article is also up for deletion as part of this Afd. --Russavia (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Reply So you think that the article citation (Singapore Airlines Public Affairs) is incorrect? Maybe instead of AfD-ing, you could take some time to improve the citation to your standard perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanceOfTravel (talk • contribs) 20:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Comment WP:SELFPUB states 'Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:'...'the article is not based primarily on such sources.' Even if other sources can be found, then there are still very real notability concerns as there is not substantial coverage by reliable sources on the subject of 'Airline XYZ awards and accolades'. --Russavia (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete This breakdown of awards is far, far, far from notable. Heck, the Skytrax article only lists the Best Airline award. If information about the "Best Cargo airline to Australia" win is notable at all (ha!) it would belong in an article about that award, not here. Bm gub (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Please forgive my ignorance, but I understood that nominators and supporters of deleting articles were advised to provide evidence of their attempts to find sources and evidence of notability before proposing articles for deletion. Are Russavia, et al really putting forward the proposition that there are no sources for either the facts or the notability of Emirate's awards? Alice✉ 09:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment Short of videoing searches made via different sources, I do believe that it is the requirement of those who believe that these articles should be kept to show that the lists are in themselves notable by providing information from reliable sources, which cover the subjects in-depth in order to write an encyclopaedic article. It should be noted that in the last 12 or so days, there has been no attempt by any of those editors who think these articles should be kept to show notability by providing such sources. --Russavia (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment This Afd was re-listed so that more comments could be obtained. Unfortunately due to the confusing templates that have been placed at three separate airline articles, editors that might be tempted to comment are being referred to an old Decision that has already been made. I also deprecate the confusions between three separate articles - why do you think no-one has commentated on the Malaysian Airlines article? It's because editors there think the template is a typogrpahicla error and relates solely to Emirates. This confusion is a clear abuse of process and this allegedly triple Afd should be terminated at once and properly re-notified according to the guidelines. Alice✉ 20:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment This Afd has been listed inline with guidelines. Please refer to WP:BUNDLE. this is one example of where similar articles have been nominated for deletion. --Russavia (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment WP:BUNDLE states clearly that "for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group". Russavia tried it with one article, and didn't get his way. He now tries it a second time, albeit by highlighting the worse-quality article and group nominating related articles, obviously including his original primary target.--Huaiwei (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment All 3 articles have been equally highlighted, and all 3 articles are of equal poor-quality due to all 3 articles being sourced to a self-published source, which does not provide us the ability to verify inline with policy the information contained in those articles. --Russavia (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    Strong Keep Malaysia Airlines awards & Singapore Airlines awards and accolades These 2 pages have been nominated for deletion but failed due to most wikipedians felt these pages should be kept. Jannisri (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment Please note that Concensus can change. --Russavia (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Indeed. WP:CCC states that "This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent. A precedent usually has reasons too, which may still be valid. There is a distinction between unresolved good-faith concerns over a reasonable or policy related matter, and disruptively trying to enforce an individual view."--Huaiwei (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment Huaiwei, before you go accusing others of being disruptive and of trying to enforce an individual view, in other words, not being civil, you should not that the number of editors who also share the same view as myself on these articles are clearly shown above. --Russavia (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Comment I made a direct quotation from a policy you cite, Russavia. If you consider such an act uncivil and amounting to an accusation, I can only infer that emotive reactions as a result of your guilt in the said accusation. By your comments on the views expressed by others, I take it that you are hoping to obtain a mandate in being disruptive, by orchestrating attacks against weaker articles in a bid to drag down stronger ones. I will therefore initiate decoupling of articles from this nomination which has passed previous AfDs as per concerns expressed by several others.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete A selection of the more notable awards should be placed into the main article, with a quick summary of the others. Wexcan (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete If any of the awards are really notable then copy into main article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete As above, any particularly notable awards should be copied into the main article, otherwise it just becomes superfluous fluff not worthy of a standalone encyclopedic article. SempreVolando (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per Wexcan, MilborneOne, SempreVolando and as probable violations of WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#INFO. This issue basically is a different form of other aviation related information where it has been agreed by consensus that every tiny detail is not needed in articles. We need, first and foremost, to remember that this is an encyclopedia and not a dumping group for every fact about a company. Yes, there will be exceptions but most of this is not in that category. If any of this is listified in the parent article, and clearly every award should not be included, they should be done some in some type of summary. If the result here is deletion, that is supporting deleting all but selected awards and that whole sale copying to the main article is not acceptable. The fact that the nomination is being changed out of process only serves to make a contested decision even more difficult. By only retaining the notable awards in a condensed form, the previous keep opinions to avoid a merge to an overly large article are dealt with in a reasonable way. Also consider if every company started listing every award that they have received. These lists would I suspect exceed that rest of the content in many cases. That may alone support the contentions by some that too much of this data is cruft or advertising or marketing sales pushes. Finally I do hope that whatever the decision is, that it is made based on the consensus strength of the arguments and not the listed strength of the votes. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

    Decoupling of multiple nominations: As Singapore Airlines awards and accolades has already passed a previous AfD process, and that there has been no major changes since the last nomination as per Wikipedia:CCC, I hereby remove this article from the above nomination. Users are welcome to initiate individual nominations on these articles subsequently.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

    Comment I have reverted the above changes by Huaiwei, as he was not the instigator of this Afd process, and as [Singapore Airlines awards and accolades]] has been part of this process since the beginning of this Afd discussion, I don't believe he has the authority to remove any other article from this process. --Russavia (talk) 18:08, 30 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Aimee Allison

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

    Unreferenced biography of a living person, questionable notability, likely promotional. Dougie WII (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment The "editorial" you cite is attributed to: "Ben Wyskida is a writer and activist living in San Francisco. He is a volunteer with the Aimee Allison campaign, obviously, Go to www.aimeeallison.org. " Hardly an independent source IMO. That's the problem with this, there are plenty of hits but if you dig deeper most seem to be from her organization or closely affiliated activist groups. - Dougie WII (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I actually agree about editorials in general not being reliable sources, I was trying to be cute with the whole "Why Aimee Allison Matters" title. Still, leaving the editorial aside, you don't find the newspaper coverage nontrivial? Looking over my hits, I guess some of the problem is that a number of these newspapers require payment for their stories, while I can view them on Nexis. There's a certain element of her being a "go-to" person for a certain kind of quote, but I can actually locate a small story about in the San Francisco Chronicle from way back in 1991 about her applying to be a conscientious objector . If you have Nexis access, the story is here. She clearly is one of these people who knows how to get her name in the paper, but does appear to have nontrivial mention in multiple sources. Xymmax (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I disagree that mentions in the Oakland Tribune provide notability. She ran, unsuccessfully, for City Council in Oakland. That guarantees some coverage in the Oakland Tribune. If she had won, or if her campaign had sparked interest outside the Bay Area (or even across the Bay Area), then I'd consider that she might be notable. But being the friend of a reporter and thus getting "woman in the street" quotes doesn't create notabililty. Heck, the woman she lost to doesn't have an article here. Argyriou (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete unless significant independent reliable sources are added to the article. I know who she is, but that's because I lived in Oakland until I escaped a year ago. She's locally notable, but there is no support for any of the assertions made in the article. Argyriou (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Please recall that if the subject is notable is what matters, not the article quality. The newspaper links provided above appear to be enough, but I honestly don't have an opinion here. Hobit (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment/Suggestion There's been no attempt to improve the page in the almost two weeks this has been in AfD, so I still suggest it be deleted but with no bias against recreation with better sources and clearly established notability. -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:45, 29 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 Cathay Pacific. Content here minimal and doesn't seem ideal for the target article, so I'll leave merging up to others. Mangojuicetalk 18:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Asia Miles

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

    The article is unsourced, provides no claims of notability, and consists nothing more than a list of wikilinks with absolutely no context. The previous version of this article was removed after not passing its previous Afd Russavia (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:01, 23 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. Sourcing seems to have been addressed. W.marsh 03:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Arborland Center

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

    Non-notable mall in Ann Arbor. Only source is another wiki. A search for good sources found none. Makes a couple of unsourced claims and that's about it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • keep - I am impressed with the profit margin of 17 times the initial investment, although a Cite may be difficult stating the exact reason, I think that is notable that a property increases in value that much. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. Another in the long list of not notable US malls. If return on initial investment makes something notable, then we have a lot of vacant land out here that qualify for articles. The mall needs to be notable. If the owner is a good businessmen, then the owner might merit an article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
      • That's kind of the point ... the owner tore down parts of the mall (making it more like your vacant land) and thus increased the value of the property by a factor of 17. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete After a ten page search for "Arborland Center" Google found nothing, so I'd say it isn't notable. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 03:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Did you try "Arbourland Shopping Center" or "Arbourland Mall", plenty of GHits under thoes names. And as the Mall was "De-Malled" in 1994[50], all thoes names become viable search patterns for the following 13 years. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 02:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I say keep now that sources have been added. The article still needs work, but it looks much better. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • keep Is sourced well enough to meet WP:N it appears. Hobit (talk) 02:15, 29 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. JERRY talk contribs 17:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] The BattleGrounds

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

    This article reads like a game guide and an advertisement and, while while it may be an interesting concept, I do not see where this meets the criteria for notability.

    Also note that, though I have listed a few HL2 mods for deletion recently, I did not list them together so that each can be evaluated separately. I think each article could reach different consensus and should be evaluated separately. Slavlin (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    I feel that this is actually a good candidate for rescuing. It is a little user manual styled, but contains information that people would be interested to find, I see it as being not much different from Texas_hold_em. Erick880 (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: If you feel that it can be re-written and sourced with credible sources, I think this could be a unique enough mod to allow for notability. If we can't get consistent high level media coverage, I would say significant low level media coverage in multiple publications and/or countries might do. I would be happy to know I was wrong on this one. That is why I didn't lump everyone of the mod nominations I have made recently together in one AfD. Slavlin (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete non-notable game mod, no sources, and bizarrely trying to compare it to Texas hold em isn't exactly helping its case any. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. Over 28,000 Google hits say it is notable. At least one person claims to have found it useful[51]. If you find it so terribly written, then rewrite it. But it's a damn game article, not a grad paper on nuclear fusion! It doesnt really need notes. All the information it contains is readily verifyable from the sources provided and from some of the 28K+ Google hits previously mentioned. Or you could simply PLAY the game and see for yourselves...oh wait, that would be original research wouldnt it...we can't have that! Once again the manic, pedantic deletionist mentality which has helped make Wikipedia a joke, manifests itself. "All the world's knowledge" now is as truthful as "Anyone can edit"...or if they can't edit or write worth a damn, simply try to delete the work of others who can. And please don't ask me to Assume good faith, that tired, meaningless mantra holds no store for me and hasn't for a long time.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 20:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete We dont usually cover mods, unless there are real sources for really major notability. RDH, are there any actual sources listing the most popular Half Life mods, or a review by a recognized reviewer, not just a fan? I'm open to non standard sourcing for this sort of article, but there has to be something. DGG (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete as insufficiently notable. I have to agree with DGG that the sources provided do not meet even the most relaxed requirements. As such, the article contents are not properly verifiable. — Satori Son 16:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Blue Shift 2

    Blue Shift 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    This article has no assertion of the subject's notability, was created by a user with the same name as the mod and really reads like an advertisement/feature list. The only claim that I can see is being an unofficial sequel to a spin-off of a notable game. I can't see where it establishes any of the criteria for Wikipeda. Slavlin (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete non-notable game mod. Also appears to have been created as spam/COI, given creator's username. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete Absolutely non-notable unless you provide a reliable sources for this game. Daniel5127 (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 20:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete No sources coming up, in fact hardly anything about it at all with forums removed from the search. Fails notability due to lack of multiple reliable sources. Someoneanother 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      • according to the website's forum the mod has been in development for a couple of months, this is either a developer or wellwisher drumming up interest, no wonder there's no details out there. Someoneanother 00:04, 29 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. JERRY talk contribs 04:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Tim Bass

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

    Obviously an autobiography and lacks verification of any notability from sources other than his own website TheHammockDistrict (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Anti-spam expert status - The only references that could be found are in documentation written by the subject about defenses against a particular attack, utilizing anti-spam featuresets that were already present in the MTA and built specifically for this purpose. The claim on the talk page as this work being a basis for all future anti-spam development as quoted on the talk page cannot be verified and is likely exaggerated.

    Blackhole strategy - No reference to this 'technique' can be found apart from within the subjects own documentation. If this strategy was the basis for other anti-spam developments, would this not be referenced multiple times by multiple sources other than the subject?

    Intrusion detection expert status - There are no references that can be found demonstrating the subjects claim of expertise in the field. Whilst the papers written describe multisensor fusion, no evidence can be seen that shows any formalization of this into anything tangible in the field of intrusion detection. Possibly his skills should be listed as in the much narrower field of multi sensor fusion and complex event processing.

    Talk page references to programming skill - Cannot find evidence to substantiate this claim, apart from within his own documentation on e-mail bombs. The war.com pdf is written by a technology editor who does not have the credentials to be able to comment on the subjects programming ability nor his security experience.

    Claims regarding other 'inventions' such as egress filtering were also deleted in earlier edits as these were demonstrably not inventions of the subject.

    Ultimately it seems that the only potentially notable behavior is development of a multi sensor fusion paper. Whilst this is an interesting paper and has certainly been referenced by other graduate level papers, there are no visible references that are using the paper as a form of any other significant deriviative work and the publication itself is in no way significant or well known. Additionally Bass has not been visibly referenced by anyone else notable in the field of information security, or can independently be verified as an expert through reliable sources. As such the subject is novel, but barely notable and certainly not encyclopedic.

    Spatulacity (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Weak Keep - he does have some notability within the IT security circles, and you see his name pop up fairly often when you search around the 'net for IDS. He's also had publications about the topic for at least 8 years (e.g. [52]). Your demands on notability are obviously much higher than mine, but as I see it there's no damage in leaving this in and it's potentially useful to someone interested in IDS technology. --Arcanios (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete

    The searches on the 'net do return some references to him, but almost all of them were written by Tim Bass. The notability guidelines suggest 'published peer recognition' not published self recognition. The usenix article as well as the ACM publication represent commentaries on the technology, and the state and direction of its developement by others; this does not constitue developement or design by the author (Bass). No software written by Bass or evidence of programming ability is anywhere to be seen, so I fail to see how the suggestion he is one of the best programmers in the country is useful to anyone but Tim Bass. This will probably be labeled a 'personnal attack' as well as other edits, but viewing the actual Computer security experts category quite clearly shows the level of notability required to occupy this page. In Tim Bass's defence, his is not the only page in that category that should be deleted out of respect for the people that actually deserve the title. The external links to silkroad basically take you to an ad-words site, and the reference - if you can find it - to his pioneering work in anti-spam techniques doesn't link to anything making that yet another unsubstantiated claim. The site simply doesn't apear to be the work of an expert in the field.
    TheHammockDistrict (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

      • Additional evidence regarding sock puppetting

    Every substantial edit of Tims page can be related to directly to Tim, a one time created account or a company directly related to Tim. The following accounts are most likely to be Tim editing his own page - 63.100.100.5 (Tim at Tibco), AFNETWORKING, EditorPerson99, FullMoonFallin, 70.174.144.171 (Tim), 68.93.134.193, 68.100.99.160

    This has been identified on at least one other occasion by another editor : User_talk:68.100.99.160 If Tim or the page itself were to be noteworthy, would it not be possible for at least one other individual to independently create and maintain this page? Spatulacity (talk) 09:26, 28 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 keep). For more details see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Pig mask. JERRY talk contribs 02:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Pig mask

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

    Delete - fails WP:NOT#PLOT as a mere rehash of the appearances of the prop in the film series. The mask may be important within the series but there appear not to be reliable sources that establish any real-world notability. Otto4711 (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

    Keep This "keep" probably won't mean anything considering how the mods deleted Hoffman's article, but in addition to being significant in all four films, the pig mask has also been sold as halloween mask, a number of action figures and models, and has been the subject of a number of promotional posters. The article does need work, but that doesn't mean we should all be delete-happy and get rid of it. (BTW, are you on some quest to rid Wikipedia of every Saw-related article or something??) --CyberGhostface (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Just the ones that don't meet WIkipedia policies and guidelines. Otto4711 (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    keep same as above though the vote will mean nothing because unless you have a shed-load of guidlines and policies to quote your vote doesn't count. An iconic part of the Saw series that needs a little work. Agent452 (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. No evidence of real-world notability; I appreciate that precedent isn't decisive at AfD, but Jason Voorhees' mask is a far more iconic image, and it only warrants a passing mention in the hockey mask article. Tevildo (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. Balance per notability concerns above. --Revanche (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Commentthere's now a section on impact ect...not that it matters really it'll still go Agent452 (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Y'know, when Hoffman's article was deleted, most of the people wanted it to be kept, but this was ignored because according to the deleting admin it was just "I like it". I wonder if most of the delete comments are going to be variations of "Per nom" if thats going to be taken into consideration.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You mean the part of that essay that explicitly states that "per nom" may be sufficient? One can only hope. Otto4711 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You're taking one part of the essay and ignoring the rest. It says in "instances where the nomination includes a well-formulated argument, is extensive in its reasoning and clearly addresses the major issues", which certainly doesn't apply in this case.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not ignoring anything. You posted your little 'look at the per nom comments' thing and I simply pointed out that it doesn't mean what you think it means. As for whether the nomination, which cites multiple policies and guidelines, constitutes a well-formulated argument etc., well, that's what we're here to decide. Otto4711 (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The Hoffman article also led to 3 accounts being permanently band for sockpuppetry. Ridernyc (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    I think even without the sockpuppets the keep-delete ratio was still higher.--CyberGhostface (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment To the closing admin: WP:PLOT states that articles should "[offer] detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." The article has since been accomadated with a section on the pig mask's development outside of the films, its impact on the series and on popular culture as well.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • And the independent reliable sourcing for this new material is...where exactly? I'm not seeing that hypebeast.com and action-figure.com really meet that standard. Otto4711 (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Action-figure.com is a fairly reliable, neutral source for the field. I can't speak for Hypebeast (although I'm sure that would be) but if it isn't I can find another source to vouch for it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    The action-figure.com link is a press release. so it dose nothing to establish notability. The rest of sources are not reliable sources. One of them is a ebay link. You need thrid party reliable sources that back up the statements made in the article. Ridernyc (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    One of the links was a review of the pig figure.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge abbreviation of content into Jigsaw Killer. And please add whatever source the out-of-universe section on development comes from. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment If push comes to shove I wouldn't mind merging with the Jigsaw article, although the plot summary would have to be shortened considerably.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge I think this and the Billy the Puppet article could be integrated into the Jigsaw article, as they're both methods he uses to psychologically torment his victims... alone they're not really notable enough to have their own articles. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 04:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 02:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • keep The operative adjective is "iconic": the mask has for better or worse achieved a cultural presence that is independent of the movie. Somebody who is disconcerted by one of these masks on Halloween will want to know where they come from--and that's what an encyclopedia is for.Wageless (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete or merge the info into one of the film artciles. no reason for this to have it's own article. Also nothing notable about a horror movie featuring pig masks, it's actually pretty common. Ridernyc (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, if it's common for horror movies to have pig masks--news to me--then all the more reason for pig masks to have their own article.14:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wageless (talk • contribs)
    lets see just off the top of my head there is Motel Hell, and the original The Wicker Man and no there is no reason for a pig mask article unless you can find sources that have written about the use of pig masks in a critical way. Ridernyc (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Comment Whilst I've made my vote already, the only issue I have with the suggestion of merging the content into Jigsaws article is that the pig mask/Billy were used by both Amanda and Jigsaw (and quite possibly Hoffman) and that merging the content will essentially make a completely "in-universe" section of the article Agent452 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Keep. The article is put together well, verifiable, contains references and concerns a recognizable aspect of a notable film series. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • And as usual you have completely failed to address even a single aspect of any issue raised by the nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    would it is possible to re-factor this as "The above comment does not address even ...." ? DGG (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • keep sources are clearly there. The two action figure reviews are enough IMO. The thing's notable it seems. Hobit (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • So is this AFD ever going to close or is it just going to be left open until enough Saw fans wander by to manufacture consensus? We're on day 13 of this five-day AFD. Otto4711 (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    This five-day AFD has now been open for 14 days. Otto4711 (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

    I'm not a Saw fan. The article is about a notable theme in a notable series of movies. It pulls together information in a helpful way. What harm comes from keeping?--Wageless (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, asking What harm, combined with an assertion of notability, is a perfectly decent way of making a case for inclusion. You cite the "Arguments to Avoid" essay as if it's some sort of tantric text; recall that it's just an essay--it isn't a set of officially sanctioned protocols, and in fact there are thoughtful editors who would take exception to it. The reason we should ask What harm in a case like this is that the overzealous deletions of people's work, as here, do in fact cumulatively harm the future usefulness of the encyclopedia.--Wageless (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • not going to get into a huge debate about it here but non-notable fancruft like this is dragging the entire project down. Ridernyc (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • A simple assertion of notability that is not backed up with reliable sources is not a component of a decent argument. No-it-isn't-yes-it-is exchanges are fairly worthless. And, not to get all "tantric" again but WP:USEFUL isn't particularly compelling either. All sorts of potentially useful things get deleted every day because they fail WP policies and guidelines. I would argue that keeping articles that violate WP policies and guidelines cumulatively harm the project by encouraging people to devote time and energy to maintaining such articles, setting the example to encourage the creation of more such articles and overall dilute the mission of the project. Otto4711 (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • My dear Otto, nobody's "violating" anything. Do you really think that if you succeed in deleting Pig Mask, the Saw people are going to devote themselves to touching up, say, an article on Robert Benchley or FPA? The mask is a big deal--it looms in peoples' imagination--and don't cite WP:LOOM, please. Your deletions are dilutions.--Wageless (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • My dear Wageless, while I will not cite WP:LOOM, I will note that "looms in the imagination" does not appear to be a criterion for establishing notability. I will also cite WP:CIVIL. I have no idea what the "Saw People" will do with themselves should this article be deleted. Perhaps they'll devote themselves to looking at the other Saw articles with an eye to bringing them in line with WP policy instead of writing long rambling plot summaries and other unencyclopedic stuff. Maybe they'll find themselves a new hobby to obsess about. Maybe they'll be fine and dandy, like a hard candy Christmas. Doesn't really matter. Otto4711 (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Day 15 of this 5-day AFD dawns... Otto4711 (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete page and merge any notable info into one of the film articles. Honestly, the choice of disguise that some of the characters in the film series sometimes used is not worth of its own breakout article. The "references" cited are nothing but commercial advertisements for SAW film memorabilia, that isn't evidence of notability. What little useful information within would more logically appear on either Jigsaw Killer or the episode of film it is being referenced. Why no breakout articles for Jason's hockey mask (as in, the SPECIFIC ones used, not Goalie masks in general) or the masks from the "Scream" franchise? They are at least as "iconic"...---Jackel (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment. One of those 'commercial advertisements' was in fact a review. Although at this point I'll agree that if any of the Saw articles hsould be merged, it should be this one.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. No evidence of notability, just a plot summary. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:04, 31 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. JERRY talk contribs 04:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] LG Chocolate (VX8600)

    LG Chocolate (VX8600) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable commercial product. Reads like an advertisement. Completely unreferenced, full of original research and how-to. Wikipedia is not a cell phone guide. Wikipedia is not a Lucky Goldstar catalog. Too few references are available that are not reviews and adverts; as such, a Wikipedia article that itself isn't an advert or review can't be sustained. Mikeblas (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

    PS: If we delete this, and we most likely will, we're going to have to rework the LG phones infobox as well. Two One Six Five Five discuss my greatness 21:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak keep I hate to say it, but I think this could be re-worked into a viable article. The phone is pretty widely used here in the Southeast USA and was heavily promoted, so it could be a notable item. Slavlin (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Question. Why do you believe that wide-spread use establishes notability? I can find no mention of this criteria at WP:N. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Answer I did say weak keep and that it could be notable. I don't see that WP:N is a hard definition of notability. I have seen many articles kept that I don't think are notable per the guidelines myself. Convincing others is the tough part. Slavlin (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • weak delete. There could be a viable article on this product, but it would be easier to create by starting over. This article is basically spam. Argyriou (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It is obviously more work to delete and recreate the article. It is trivial to blank the existing article and rewrite it - no admin action is required for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete Lacks refs, reads like an ad, fails notability requirement. Cell phones are not automatically notable enough for a permanent encyclopedia article just because a company offers them for sale, even if they get pro forma reviews in online sites which seem to exist mainly to review every cell phone released. There are probably such reviews of this phone online somewhere. I am all for articles about groundbreaking phones which recieve widespread notice, such as the Iphone. Other developments in cellphone technology and notable manufacturers/sellers can be mentioned in the Mobile phone or History of mobile phones articles. Edison (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete - best described as spam advertising. But remember notability is not a policy. EJF (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment notability is a guideline and it is quite appropriate to cite it in AFD debates. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion says "Arguments commonly used to recommend deletion are: "unverifiable" (violates WP:V), "original research" (violates WP:NOR), and "non-notable" in cases where the subject does not meet their respective notability criteria." I was at a FedEx store today and saw a bin for recycling cell phones. It was about half full (a pessimist would say half empty) of cell phones. That makes me reflect on whether each model of cell phone now or ever sold is really inherently notable as some feel. Notability is permanent, so it would extend to every model ever sold. Why not then every model of Hoover vacuum cleaner, or every model of refrigerator sold by every vendor? They would be equally verifiable, they were also heavily used and heavily promoted, and they generally cost more and lasted longer. Edison (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. I could relist it again but it's pretty obvious no one cares if it's deleted :) Wizardman 17:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Bahia Escondida

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

    Not notable private development. —Noah 17:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


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

    The result was delete. No objections in 10 days. Since there was so little participation, I'll hear appeals on my talk page... arguments should address the nominator's argument for deletion. W.marsh 03:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Cosmo speedway

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

    Should be deleted in accordance with the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (music). 0kdal (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 02:10, 23 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. --Oxymoron83 06:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Libertarian Youth Bloc

    Libertarian Youth Bloc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Unclear encyclopedic notability. A youth party founded last month, aiming at candidacy for a model parliament. No independent sources. High on a tree (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 02:11, 23 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 04:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Terry O'Neill (karateka)

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

    Borderline notability. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep seems notable enough, just needs sourcing. RMHED (talk) 20:34, 29 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. --Oxymoron83 06:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Baroness Grimm

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

    This was tagged for speedy deletion as nonsense. I contested the speedy as the article is not random nonsense, and asserts notability. It is, however, very likely a hoax: the subject is claimed to be a well known artist and writer, and most unlikely of all, a life peer of the United Kingdom. No apparent search results for the person or the peerage, however I am happy to withdraw the nomination if someone can find reliable references. Canley (talk) 02:02, 23 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 author created numerous nverifiable/hoax articles. `'Míkka>t 18:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Is Finally Here

    Is Finally Here (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Jonathan 01:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Speedy delete, crystal ball or not, it's a non-notable mixtape by a non-notable artist. Corvus cornixtalk 01:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    Removed the speedy tag, as it was an invalid A7. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    It is not an invalid A7. Non-notable music by non-notable people is clearly a speedy deletion candidate. Corvus cornixtalk 01:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    Technically, it is invalid in that it is not referencing a real person, organization, or website with no claim of notability (i.e. vanity pages). I, personally, think this article falls under the intent of A7, but not under the letter. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 02:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment. This is prime speedy fodder. i have used {{db-reason|Unnecessary song/album page of a deleted/non-notable artist}} to get rid of rakes of such articles. tomasz. 14:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. No sources on a future product is pretty much crystal ballery. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. Wildthing61476 (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete, with much speediness. Unsourced, no notion of notability, yadda yadda. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 02:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete as unsourced crystal-balling. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete even setting aside the crystal-ball issue, mixtapes are always non-notable, especially by such an unknown artist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete - Unsourced and per WP:CRYSTAL. Macy's123 (review me) 03:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Please also take into account The World Is Ending which falls into the same position. tomasz. 14:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Sharon Stone (Flintstones)

    Sharon Stone (Flintstones) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    This somewhat lengthy article is completely unreferenced and consists of nothing more than plot summary and unnecessary quotes. The character has only appeared in this one film, and there is no evidence to suggest that the chaarcter is notable enough to warrant a seperate article. Any relevent information should be covered in the main film article. PC78 (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete. I would say merge with The Flintstones (film), but that article already discusses the character at some length in the plot summary. I don't think there's anything worth keeping here. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 02:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. As noted, the character is covered in the main film article. Appeared only one time, in a film of moderate popularity, and to be honest the only really notable thing is the fact that the actress Sharon Stone was originally going to play the role, which would have been a cool bit of stunt-casting. But such information is easily covered by the main film article. If an article on Kyle Maclachlan's character from the film has also been created, I'd support deletion of it, too. 23skidoo (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete, no merge required. --Jack Merridew 07:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per Jack Merridew. JuJube (talk) 08:01, 23 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. --Oxymoron83 06:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Christoforos Zografos

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

    Delete few referees are notable, this one isn't; fails WP:BIO Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment - I want to look at the standards on WP:Football before I vote for sure, but he officiated qualifying matches for Euro 2008. That's at least an assertion of notability. matt91486 (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Nanonic (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep Zografos is recognized as a full international by FIFA. Additionally, he has been selected for several UEFA tournaments, including Intertoto, UEFA Cup, Champions League, Euro 2008 and U-21 Championship (although primarily in the qualifying rounds). Jogurney (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep In the spirit (if not the letter) of WP:BIO#Athletes, by refereeing internationals, I'd say he's notable. --Dweller (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. Other league officials (Commissioners, Directors, etc.) would be notable largely based on the level of competition in which their league participates, just as athletes are. In that spirit, I agree with Dweller that the subject is likely notable. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - given the further expansion of his experience, I definitely think he meets notability. matt91486 (talk) 06:19, 25 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 (under the speedy deletions policy). Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Site Explorer

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

    Delete not every internet tool or feature is notable; this unsourced article is about one that isn't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Can't see any reason why this is important from that. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. No assertion of notability. Also, absolutely no usable content. Argyriou (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Speedy delete - per WP:CSD#A7. Cheers, LAX 22:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


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

    The result was Delete, no independent sources nor other indication of notability. Tikiwont (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] North Carolina Buddhist Vihara

    North Carolina Buddhist Vihara (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Non notable recent Buddhist temple. Speedy deleted four times, each time recreated, so listed at AfD to get rid of it once and for all. No Google news hits[53], only six Google hits[54], none of them indicating any notability. Fram (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

    • North Carolina Buddhist Vihara is a well known Buddhist temple in North Carolina. It is maintained by Sri Lankan community in RTP. The intension was to share information about the temple with new comers to the community.PrabathKuruwita (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete recreated page that is still not notableGtstrickyTalk or C 23:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 01:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete - Considering its location in NC it could be notable, but not as it is. Also, considering PrabathKuruwitas statement above, it seems like it may border on violating WP:SOAP. Altairisfartalk 02:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • This official web site of the North Carolina Buddhist Vihara is www.ncvihara.org.

    PrabathKuruwita (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 17:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. No assertion of meeting any sort of notability requirements, and given the age of the group, I doubt that we will find evidence that it does. Pastordavid (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment notability here requires documentation. There are some criteria that need to be documented, these are described in the WP:ORG guideline. Wikipedia's basic approach has been to assume that individual congregations are not inherently notable, and this assumption is also being applied here. Documentation has to consist of independent publications that assert the temple is important and/or describe it in substantial detail. They could be religious publications that are well-read in an important segment of the Buddhist world and are considered reliable for identifying what's of note in that world. They could also include local newspapers that have commented on it and considered it notable for the area. Note that routine mention of congregations in religion sections of local newspapers, somewhat like wedding announcements and obituaries, are not generally considered evidence of notability. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC).
      • Additional comment Because a lot of companies, advocates, etc. began writing articles to promote their organizations and viewpoints, Wikipedia crafted a set of policies to prohibit the creation of articles for the purpose of advertising and promotion. WP:ORG has a section mentioning this prohibition. If the temple has reliable sources documenting that it is notable this shouldn't be a problem so far as keeping the article is concerned. However, you should be aware that if there is published criticism of the temple, its leaders, etc., that criticism will likely also make its way into the article and, if documented, can't be removed. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:17, 27 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 a result of the rewrite, and several of the delete voters reconsidering. Wizardman 16:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Murdock Middle School

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

    Murdock Middle School is a very short article which doesn't contain enough information to show notability. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete Merge with school district via SCHOOL via noncompliance with proposed WP:SCHOOL policy. ie: high schools are automatically notable, lower schools require proof of notability. Pharmboy (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete for lack of notability and sources. I note, as well, that WP:SCHOOL is merely a proposal at this time, and shouldn't necessarily be relied upon - but it deals with notability and verifiability, both of which come into play here. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    I pointed out that it is only proposed, but WP:ONLYGUIDELINE would apply as it is currently the closest thing to an official policy we have, flawed or not, and is as valid as any essay or policy in a discussion. Pharmboy (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete Fails WP:V and WP:N (i'm not gonna cite a proposed guideline, especially one that I don't agree with). TJ Spyke 23:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete fails SCHOOL through failing of V and N -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge name of school to Port Charlotte, Florida. Population 46,451. Maybe someone can make a section about education there. Mandsford (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • and remember... on Wikipedia, pinball machines are notable, individual episodes of Ren and Stimpy are notable, tiny unincorporated locations in the road atlas are notable... but schools are NOT notable. Go figure. Mandsford (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge with Charlotte County Public Schools. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    Note the above !vote is that of the nominator, who appears to have reconsidered the deletion. JERRY talk contribs 01:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 01:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment we have in the past usually accepted Blue Ribbon schools as evidence for notability, --although it continues to be over my objections, it does seem to be the consensus. DGG (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • weak Keep Award has been given to less than 4% of all schools. Seems notable. Hobit (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep the article now meets all notability standards; this article mentioned nothing about MMS being a blue ribbon school when it was nominated for deletion, I found that information on the internet and added it to the article. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 04:26, 30 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. Keeper | 76 17:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Trading Post Magazine

    Trading Post Magazine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    This article does not clearly indicate the notability of the subject. I can't find non-trivial sources on the publication, and I don't think it meets notability guidelines. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

    • I have edited the article and removed specific parts that sound like an advertisement. I also removed some text that will make the article be more neutral in manner. sepepper 6:25pm (EST) January 19, 2008


    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Any more suggestions are welcomed. I will also edit the article in the future should any more prudent information come to my attention about it. sepepper 6:15pm, 23 January 2008 (EST)
    • Delete. Parts read like a copyvio or spam. Does not assert notability. If it is notable, starting from scratch would likely result in a better article that what you would get from modifying the current one. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Stubify and start over. Likely notable due to lawsuits involving Google. Looks like copyvio from here. Hobit (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      • If you want to start over, why not start from a clean slate by deleting? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. Article contains no assertions of notability that are verified by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 16:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Elder Scrolls. Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Dremora

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

    Recreated article that was previously merged into a bigger article that was AFD'd; notability issues and lack of reliable sourcing issues still stand. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Redirect back to the merge destination and move protect. Exactly the same problems as before, in-universe and lacking sources. These are just enemies or background plot for the games, there's no demonstrated need for an article. The details provided are pretty much the same as can be dug out of the strategy guide on my shelf - not a good sign. Someoneanother 16:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Redirect per Someone another. --Explodicle (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete and redirect to The Elder Scrolls - Entirely against WP:WAF guidelines and a bit of WP:OR to boot. Marasmusine (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment show the folly in deleting merged character articles--they'd be a much better choice than absurdly detailed articles like this, and would be a good compromise. We should reconsider .DGG (talk) 18:12, 26 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. JERRY talk contribs 00:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] SkyscraperCity

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

    Unremarkable website. Unable to find references to add. Ranked #68,937 on Quantcast. [55] Failed Prod Toddst1 (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Weak keep - There appears to be some press mentions, but are behind pay walls. [56], [57], [58]. -- Whpq (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. Fails WP:WEB. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete - Not a very significant fan-site, current article fails WP:WEB and I could not find any strong independent reliable sources which would allow the article to do so. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:51, 27 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 per WP:RS. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] PCS (Factions)

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

    A two line article on a subject with very few Ghits so no WP:RS, and a book by an author who doesn't get one listing on Amazon. Looks more like a piece of cheap publicity than an suitable subject for a Wiki article Trident13 (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Delete A non-notable fictional country on a non-notable world in a non-notable book by a non-notable author. Perhaps even CSD:A7 - not even an assertion of notability. Argyriou (talk) 06:18, 23 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. Kurykh 00:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Lombardi trophy curse

    Lombardi trophy curse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    This article seems to be filled with original reasearch and might possibly be a hoax. Tavix (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete This is idiotic. The so-called curse is that no team has won three Super Bowls in a row. That's not a curse, that's what happens in a league where there are 31 other teams. Mandsford (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. No independent sources. WP:OR. Pburka (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete as non-notable. Hoaxy. While it's been noted before (usually in passing) that no team has won the Super Bowl more than twice in a row, this is my first encounter with the notion of a "curse". Why was this "curse" placed? Who is Aslam Rawoof? Who knows! Wikipedia isn't for things made up on the armchair on Monday morning. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:50, 23 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 a1 empty/no context, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] List of notable people who regularly wear spandex

    List of notable people who regularly wear spandex (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Tried prod, author deleted. Total nonsense list, appears designed primarily to make fun of Lance Armstrong with the comment of "roughly 21 hours a day". Gromlakh (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    • I find it hard to believe that anyone would create an article like this in good faith. It's just ridiculous. Speedy G1 tag remains on the article. We don't have to go through process just for the sake of it here; it just needs to be speedily deleted. I would delete this per WP:BLP alone.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:28, 23 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. Keeper | 76 17:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Red Sulphur Springs Hotel

    Red Sulphur Springs Hotel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    A hotel like this one does not deserve to have a standalone article. - Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Weak keep or merge, but open to changing this. (I'm not sure I understand the deletion reason -- a more concrete deletion reason might change my opinion.) I've added a source to the article, but it definitely needs more sourcing for notability. Unfortunately, a structure which has been closed this long will not have many online sources, so this one will need someone who wants to trudge down to a library in the area. If this isn't kept, I recommend merging with Red Sulphur Springs, West Virginia.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete Unsourced (I'd like to see something for the claim that guests who died there were secretly buried in "to protect the hotel's reputation"; inaccurate (President Martin Van Beau?); irrelevant (a hotel that closed 90 years ago?); and too similar to the more famous resort of White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia. Maybe it's not a hoax, but it's not worthy of an article either. Mandsford (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge into Red Sulphur Springs, West Virginia. The hotel is likely to be integral to the history of this small town, but since it's not really notable enough for a stand-alone article, merging into the "parent" article (which could certainly use the expansion) is probably the best course of action. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge & redirect to Red Sulphur Springs, West Virginia seems appropriate in this case, as the hotel doesn't deserve its own article but is probably substantial in that community. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 18:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - redirect to neighboring town possible, but not necessary. verifiable and notable based on existing sources, expansion and further verification warranted (as always). ∴ here…♠ 23:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 00:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge into Red Sulphur Springs, West Virginia per Gnome and alex. Some inline citations connecting specific statements to the listed sources wouldn't hurt, though. Deor (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - notable for its history, though the article is very poorly written and sourced. Altairisfartalk 01:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - per Altairisfar. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep notable individually-- we should have the important resort hotels, now or historicallyDGG (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep. Although sourcing for the article is currently below standards, subject hotel is likely notable. A Google Books search result provides some references for article verification and expansion. — Satori Son 16:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Kurykh 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Ross Mullan

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

    Non-notable puppeteer. "Ross Mullan" + "puppeteer" returns only 16 results in Google Gromlakh (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete as NN. Bearian (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete just not notable enough. RMHED (talk) 19:37, 28 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 with cleanup (I'll add a tag to the article). Keeper | 76 17:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] San Soo

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

    Advertorial tone, minimal (some primary) sourcing, questionable notability. Was prodded (not by me) but contested. If kept will need a POV clean up Nate1481( t/c) 10:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Weak keep the article is badly mangled by POV and OR, but can be cleaned up RogueNinjatalk 17:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. I prodded it originally (along with several others, including the similarly sourced Li style Tai Chi Chuan), as it seems to be another in a series of primary source driven MA articles. More secondary sources being added to the article would change my opinion. Also, if the article survives, we should mention "san soo" is a dialect pronunciation of sanshou which more generally just means "freestyle". --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 00:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep JJL and RogueNinja said it all. Lady Galaxy 00:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep Needs work, but notability can be verified by internet alone with a Google search of several thousand relevant results. Altairisfartalk 02:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • comment you may want to read WP:Google test. 40k results for "San Soo" Kung fu (just "San soo" got me korean restaurants in the list...) Average, "Shotokan karate" = 802,000, Malla-yuddha = 3,820; but has better sources, I'd base it on the quality of sources not the g-hits. --Nate1481( t/c) 16:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 14:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] List of Dr. Floyd episodes

    List of Dr. Floyd episodes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    Procedural nom as de-proded in June 2007. I realise I should have not requested prod again November 2007 so this is now brought forward to Afd for discussion. Article has no WP:RS reliable sources to establish WP:V verifiability. Although a podcast and not a television show, WP:EPISODE should be considered as it handles "List of X episodes" guidelines as it seems this list is based on. Breno talk 06:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment Original prod reasons were here WikiProject Podcasting and WP:NOT#DIR not a program guide, though verifiability policy should take priority. --Breno talk 06:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge to main article. What isn't verifiable about this? The show's website has some of the information, including many of the titles and episode numbers. Amazon list discs available with the first two seasons, including show numbers. I guess dates aren't available, but I think most of this is OK. Torc2 (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 00:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete as it currently stands, because the article doesn't tell me why the episodes are notable. As the nom says, I also think that WP:EPISODE applies, so also delete for a lack of other information. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. I have to respond to Lifebaka's comments above. It is not the place of episode list articles to explain why an episode is "notable". In fact, such lists are encouraged because individual episode articles are considered, on the whole, to be insufficient in many cases. So lists are preferred. I do not feel that's a valid criteria for deletion. However I cannot support or oppose deletion at this time because I don't know what the current rule is regarding radio episodes. In theory they're no different that TV episodes -- especially with regards to old-time radio, pre-TV. I need to check before I cast my opinion. 23skidoo (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    WP:EPISODE doesn't apply, really, now that I look at it again. A lack of outside information is concerning, but no longer enough for me to !vote to delete. Neutral. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • 'Weak keep Individual articles might have to explain why they are notable unless the series it self is truly very notable. a list does not. if the series itself is notable, a list of episodes is appropriate, and whether or not to merge to the main article is an editorial question to be decided separately. DGG (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep per DGG. A list of episodes from a notable (and apparently award-winning) show is completely reasonable and what we want (rather than one article per episode). Hobit (talk) 01:24, 29 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. Kurykh 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Instant Flight

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

    Possible Conflict of Interest due to creator's user name - possible promotion. No indication of notability. Wisdom89 (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete They're not big enough yet. The article contains no references and seriously needs cleanup. It fails notability. Lady Galaxy 00:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete no evidence of WP:N. JJL (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete WP:NOT#NOTABLE. The stuff is also unreferenced.-Ravichandar 05:36, 23 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. Tiddly-Tom 17:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Demonoid

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

    Demonoid is (was) one of countless Torrent trackers on the web. There is nothing in this article to establish notability, and the article content mostly chronicles the site being shut down. No third-party sources for the article are given. -- Atamachat 00:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Neutral. Instinct says keep, as it was an extremely well known bittorrent site (2.4 million results) but policy (WP:WEB: "includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine...") seems to suggest it needs references from a different medium to the Internet, which I can't find. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 00:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep "No third-party sources for the article are given" is not a reason for deletion. In this case, third-party sources can be given. I will add some. –Pomte 01:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment It is definitely a reason for deletion. If you look at WP:WEB, it states that the site should have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Every reference on the page so far has been to Demonoid itself, except for the "Ross & Bride" link which doesn't even mention Demonoid anywhere on the page. The lack of references isn't the only problem with this article however, the content of the article itself is a problem. Again from WP:WEB:
    Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known.
    What achievement has Demonoid had other than being shut down? What impact has it had, or historical significance? So far there's not much to this article aside from general info about Demonoid itself, and makes no assertion as to why Demonoid should be included as an article on Wikipedia. -- Atamachat 01:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    A site can be the subject of reliable sources and yet its article can be devoid of them. We don't delete articles just because they have no sources, but because there are convincingly no sources. I said I would add some, so your questions were premature. –Pomte 00:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    There's no need to be snippy, my questions were not regarding the reliability of sources but the establishment of notability within the article itself. I was explaining my nomination of deletion for this article, which has been under attack on this page. -- Atamachat 01:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    No one's attacking your legitimate nomination. Here I contested your claim that "It is definitely a reason for deletion." I'm clearly not talking about the reliability of sources either, but the existence of them. When I said "I will add some", that should suggest that these new sources will be part of the attempt to establish notability, by definition. –Pomte 02:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. I second the tracker's notability and ease of finding eclectic files and music. Although Demonoid hasn't had as many run-ins with the law as The Pirate Bay to make it more famous, it still deserves an article here. True, it wasn't well covered in other medias, but that doesn't make the site any less notable. Arc88 (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. Other than former popularity, the site does not seem particularly notable.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    I thought notability couldn't expire?
    As I said, I don't see how it is notable. Not before it's closure and not after. If there ARE reasons the former webite is notable, it should be more apparent in the article page.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    "Notability can't expire"... That's false. Notability is not temporary. That means that for something to be considered notable at all, it needs to stay notable. For example, if some guy makes national headlines for surviving a 500 foot fall, and it all over the news for a week, and is then never spoken of again, he isn't considered notable. The link you give proves the opposite of what you're trying to say. -- Atamachat 16:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    If the guy was notable back then, then he is notable now. But in your case he wasn't. Staying notable is a misnomer. –Pomte 00:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep Notable due to large user base, other websites are kept due to large user base. Large user base denotes notability. Third party sources and citations should be added.Pookakitty (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep It has featured in a few articles [59] [60] [61] and [62] (the last one isn't all that great I admit). --Sin Harvest (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep I'd say it is definitely notable, and after making an effort I do see sources discussing it. Gwynand (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep Demonoid has been one of the larger points of controversy among bit torrent, and has been under frequent attack by various copyright lobbies. If you believe that the whole 'suing bittorent sites' thing is not notable, then so be it, but if not this site has great notability. Further, it is a very large with a large userbase, and has been mentioned in articles. Wangfoo (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep per Wangfoo and Arc88. Disclosure: I am a registered Demonoid User.--Greenguy1090 (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • KeepAnyone who spent anytime on Yahoo! Answers will know how tedious it was having a million questions a day asking if anyone has a spare Demonoid invites. This, in itself, suggests to me that it was an incredible well sought after site. GillsMan (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep Demonoid was not just any old torrent tracker, but one of the best and most comprehensive, run with a unique vision and a highly individual membership policy. The proposer for deletion simply seems ignorant of this, but ignorance does not imply a lack of notability. As has been said above, Demonoid's legal troubles drew a great deal of attention.JulieRudiani (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

    Not only are nearly thirty references given, but some of them predate the deletion proposal which leads me to wonder why the proposer said there were none.JulieRudiani (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

    Because the references were all to Demonoid's own web site, they weren't third-party references which is what Wikipedia requires for verifiability. The only reference prior to the AfD that didn't point to Demonoid itself was to a web site that didn't even mention Demonoid, it was about file sharing sites in general. -- Atamachat 00:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    This is the second time you've ignored the citation to TorrentFreak.com. You could argue that it's not reliable, but it's clearly third-party. –Pomte 00:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    I'm ignoring it because it's a blog. Blogs are rarely considered to be viable sources of information on Wikipedia, see WP:V for details. -- Atamachat 01:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    Right, and you could have said that at the beginning to avoid this exchange. –Pomte 01:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That's not what the source says. –Pomte 03:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • ?? Yes it does... --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

    Honorable Mention: Demonoid For being one of the most visited BitTorrent sites until they pulled the plug in November.

    "one of the most visited" does not mean the most used. –Pomte 13:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    Isn't that being slightly pedantic, they have made their point. --Sin Harvest (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    It'd be a much stronger claim to notability if Demonoid was used more than The Pirate Bay. People who don't click links might take their word for it. –Pomte 07:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is exactly the sort of quick-summary-of-hard-to-find-information article that is exclusively available on wikipedia and needs to remain there. Four out of every five torrents you download these days cites Demonoid.com as the original tracker and download source. I looked demonoid up just now out of curiosity and knew that i could find it on wikipedia but probably nowhere else. This is why wikipedia exists, don't remove this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.207.240 (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. It may be "one of countless" trackers, but it also happens to have been one of the largest ones of the time, and one of the only major ones that had any kind of community to it. Even if it never reopens it is completely notable. Lethesl 23:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - Having seen the large userbase both before the shutdown and currently on the forums, the Alexa rating, and the sources listed above, I believe the article should stay. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep Demonoid was one of the most highly regarded private trackers in the torrent community, and as such has earned notoriety for its accomplishments. Furthermore, it is rumored to be making a return once certain personal issues have been dealt with by the site owner. Anyone who would consider deleting demonoid must have never used its services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.194.199 (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    Demonoid was a public tracker, they kept repeating that all over the forums. Arc88 (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep The nature of a phenomenon it is irrelevant, what matters is its notability. Demonoid was very notable, and the article is well written and referenced. I have never understood the urge to delete information for what seems like purely and misguided legalistic purposes. Usefulness is for user or posterity to determine. Miqademus (talk) 00:10, 28 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 snowball keep. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Thomas Wilcher

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

    Disputed prod. I removed a speedy tag on the basis of comments at the talk page. I disagree with the remover of the prod that the source given is sufficient to necessarily pass our notability criteria for sportspeople, but am happy to be persuaded otherwise. Looks to me like a very good sportsman who didn't quite make it at the top level of athletics or American football and I'm inclined to think he's therefore not quite notable. A debate will no doubt clarify things. Dweller (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    KeepThis article has twenty sources with more coming. When the nominator says "I disagree with the remover of the prod that the source given is sufficient" what does that mean. Also, "like a very good sportsman who didn't quite make it at the top level of athletics or American football" is not quite appropriate either because his notability is not based on professional accomplishment as outlined at Wikipedia:Bio#Athletes, but instead based on Wikipedia:SPORTS#Amateur_sports_people. As a two-time Michigan H.S. Athlete of the year who went on to become a NCAA champion and three-time NCAA All-American he passes this hurdle.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    Note Wikipedia:SPORTS was rejected by the community, as the tag at its head states. --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    The edit summary for the prod removal referred to one source in particular, but while it is reliable, it does nothing more than prove college amateur sports career, which doesn't seem to cut the mustard with our notability guideline. It's more than possible that the guideline needs fixing, but I can only go with what is. --Dweller (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    I say keep it, sure it could use some work but Mr. Wilcher is recognized as one of the best in the state of Michigan, he also had a respectable college football career and holds numerous MHSAA records in football and track & field. Jake (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Keep I really see nothing wrong with this at all. Well written and well referenced. Why delete it? michfan2123 (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Keep I think Wilcher's NCAA and MHSAA track championships make him notable. I note also that the author (a very productive editor) states that he intends to put the time into beefing up the article with additional sources and references. If the author wants to put the time into this piece, I would not discourage it.Cbl62 (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Keep - I'm the one who removed the PROD template. I'm no expert on Wikipedia criteria for sports articles, but it seems to me that Wilcher's record of accomplishments as a two-time Michigan High School Athlete of the year, NCAA track champion, U of Michigan football player, and a successful/influential high school coach add up to the sort of distinctive career that is considered "notable." The issue raised on the talk page was a dearth of "secondary sources published about him." Based on the record of his accomplishments in high school and college (which are documented by reliable secondary sources), I believe that the absence of news media profiles and similar sources is due to the fact that his accomplishments predate the Internet (two decades have passed since he was in college). If he were an active college athlete now, I believe there would be no dispute over his notability because there would be an abundance of recent coverage. --Orlady (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Keep - based on the championships/all-americas. matt91486 (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    Rationale explanation Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. My concern was based on our guideline at Wikipedia:Bio#Athletes. I'll quote it in full:

    Athletes

    • Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.
    • Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them).[8]

    My concern was that he fails on the first point and on the second too, as the highest level of amateur sports is not college level, nor national, but international. I'm obviously swayed by the number of RS that report on his achievements. Hence my somewhat ambivalent nomination. Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Note I have begun a thread at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Athletes, observing that to-date 100% of contributors here would appear to differ with our guideline. Please comment there on proposed changes to the guideline, and keep this page for discussion of deletion of this particular article. --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep, I believe that a national champion athlete is notable.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 17:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep as per all comments so far. Well sourced article about a national champion- amateur, yes, but at the very top end of amateur. J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Speedy keep per snowball clause. He was the national amateur champion of the United States in a major sport and 3 time All-American. Being a 3 time All-American means that he was one of the top amateurs. The article is well-referenced by a reliable contributor. Royalbroil 03:34, 25 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 rename to Bibliography of atmospheric dispersion modeling. (I've already completed the move procedure) Please also note, I strongly feel the Atmospheric dispersion modeling#Further reading section should be updated to include a {{main}} tag leading to this article. As closer, I will not be making that change. Keeper | 76 20:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Air pollution dispersion modeling books

    Air pollution dispersion modeling books (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    I'm sure that air pollution dispersion modeling is a worthwhile topic, but this page is a bibliography, and is only a listing without any indication of the notability of the topic of APDM books. It is a violation of Wikipedia is not a directory. My PROD tag was removed one minute after I posted it, with the edit summary "this article has survived almost two years with no complaints. prod removed". I found the article by hitting the Random article link, so maybe it was just its time. PatrickStar LaserPants (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete, or more helpfully, de-cat and move to Talk:Air pollution dispersion modeling/Books or something similar, where it could be useful for editors of the associated article. --Dhartung | Talk 10:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Move to talk per Dhartung's suggestion. Useful for editors even if it is not appropriate for readers. cab (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per WP:NOT#DIR Doc Strange (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge to Atmospheric dispersion modeling#Further reading. Argyriou (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Do Not Delete and I have a number of comments:
      • I do not think the article should be deleted at all. For those people who are work in the field of Air Dispersion Modeling or students who are studying in the field, such an article is an extremely useful resource.
      • I see from the talk page of PatrickStar LaserPants that when MKolt removed the PROD tag with the comment "This article has survived almost two years with no complaints" it was because he felt that it was out of character for a new editor to start leaving such tags almost as soon as that new editor joined Wikipedia. I agree with MKolt that no one has complained about the article for almost two years ... and thus one could say that it has proven to be useful.
      • Merging the article into Atmospheric dispersion modeling#Further reading would make the "Further reading" section very, very much longer than the Atmospheric dispersion modeling article itself.
      • As I recall, the Wikipedia Manual of Style includes a statement something like this: Rules and regulations cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.
      • I admit that I am somewhat biased since I first wrote this article. Nonetheless, I feel most strongly that the article should not be deleted. - mbeychok (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Prune, merge and delete per nom. I agree that expert-edited bibliographies are useful Web content, but so are many other things that 'also' don't fit in on Wikipedia. Bm gub (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep I am very uncomfortable with this deletion. I do not feel that WP:NOT#DIR applies. There is nothing in it which bars bibliographies explicitly. It appears that stand-alone lists is the criterion to apply. Perhaps this is not the best list, but I think with some annotation, since we clearly have an expert available to do so, it could serve as an excellent See Also/Further Reading link from the Atmospheric dispersion modeling article. I am the editor who removed the prod tag. While working in the User Creation log, I came across an editor whose entire edit history (at the time) included three edits, all of which were application of tags to articles. Although we encourage all editors to be WP:BOLD, something seemed amiss. So I removed the prod tag, and the article wound up here. I understand that it sounds like a personal attack to question an editor's motivations. I think something is wrong when an editor with ten thousand edits has to defend his work against an editor who arrived one night, tagged five articles, sent his disputed prod to AfD, and has not edited since. I understand that we comment on content rather than contributors. In this case, I think we give the tie to the base-runner and keep the article that the Chemical Engineer with ten thousand edits maintains. His contributions are worth keeping, even if this one may need some work to be a good encyclopaedia article. MKoltnow 15:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Of course, I could be a returning editor whose old identity had thousands of edits. The real issue is that it should not be a stand alone article. Also, of what utility is the list of conference proceedings to a user of Wikipedia? PatrickStar LaserPants (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Anyone who has ever done serious research on any significant subject would readily understand the value of conference proceedings devoted to that subject. - mbeychok (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Yes, to us. But what about the average Wikipedia user? PatrickStar LaserPants (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Are you saying that there are two classes of Wikipedians, us and the average Wikipedia user? Surely, you don't mean that. - mbeychok (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
              • No, I was politely informing you that I have done serious research on a significant subject, and in fact should be doing it right now instead of goofing off on Wikipedia. And please explain the value of the list of conference proceedings to the Wikipedia user. PatrickStar LaserPants (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Suggest to Move to e.g. List of books about Air pollution dispersion modeling. I think also that WP:STAND applies, though it is not exactly clear under its current name that this is a list page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge or Delete. Do not keep. Wikipedia is not a bibliography. Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge per Argyriou. --Ouro (blah blah) 16:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree with Move to e.g. List of books about Air pollution dispersion modeling as suggested by administrator Dirk Beetstra. - mbeychok (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Move rather than delete. It could be useful for those into Air pollution dispersion modelling. The Vindictive (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 00:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Move per Beetstra, though another discussion might be best for what title to move it to. It looks like it's just a mislabeled list, which isn't a reason to delete it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • See Category:Bibliographies by subject for one naming pattern to follow. Uncle G (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Twelve different people commented the last time on this topic of limited interest. I don't know how much thorough a debate you expect. Mandsford (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • There was sufficient disparity among the participants to lead to the determination that a) there was no consensus yet, and b) that continuation of the debate would likely change that. Thanks for helping. JERRY talk contribs 02:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll change my vote to move as per Dirk Beetstra in the interest of a clearer consensus, given that other editors think that a standalone bibliography is acceptable. (I'm just a bit uncomfortable with the potential for some hidden POV built into the list on such an esoteric topic, though.) The name should be List of books about air pollution dispersion modeling, though, to conform with WP:NCC. --Dhartung | Talk 01:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • As the original creator of this article, I agree with compromise first suggested by Dirk Beetstra to move and rename the article List of books about air pollution dispersion modeling. That makes at least six of us agreed with that idea: Beetstra, The Vindictive, lifebaka, Dhartung, Uncle G and mbeychok. - 06:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I'd go for Bibliography of atmospheric dispersion modelling, personally, simply because it matches more of the articles in Category:Bibliographies by subject and it can easily be seen from the name to be a summary-style sub-article of Atmospheric dispersion modeling#Further reading, which latter of course would get a {{main}} at its head. Uncle G (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
        • This is a Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument in disguise. Many of the items in the "Bibliographies by subject" Category should be nominated for deletion as well. Nobody has suggested sending it to Wikisource, where it would fit in well. I just looked, and there are tons of bibliographies there. PatrickStar LaserPants (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Some have, and they've been kept in part on the grounds that a bibliography of a subject is valid encyclopaedia article territory (which should be obvious given that "Further reading" is one of the standard sections of an article) and a summary style breakout article of a Further reading section is just as valid as a summary style breakout article of any other section. Moreover, there's a reason that no-one has suggested moving this to Wikisource: Such a move would be quite wrong. Collecting lists of further reading for a subject is not Wikisource's territory at all. It's encyclopaedia territory. Wikisource is a source text repository. This article is not a source text in any way. Uncle G (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Well, then I'd like to see even one source demonstrating the notability of the topic "Air pollution dispersion modeling books (and conference proceedings)." Has anybody published such a bibliography anywhere? (List of Adolf Hitler books this is not, that list has numerous bluelinks for both books and authors.) PatrickStar LaserPants (talk) 07:08, 25 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 with an additional consensus that this needs cleanup (so tagged). Keeper | 76 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Half-Life 2: Capture The Flag (Mod)

    Half-Life 2: Capture The Flag (Mod) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

    This reads like a detailed guide and advertisement for a game mod. Though other mods do have their own pages, this article asserts no notability for the mod itself. Slavlin (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Keep but condense. The reference to official Valve matches establishes notability, so the rest is mostly a content issue. 23skidoo (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep but cleanup. The valve match and links show credibility, but some clean up could be used. Those in the know should cover history of the mod, etc. Gameplay basics should be covered, as they are necessary to understand the subject of the article, but things should be tidied up. The main reason listed for deletion is that the article asserts no notability. Notability has been established already so keep. Palehorse864 (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete as there are no sane arguments for keep, merge or cleanup. The article fails WP:V, WP:N,WP:WAF, but fails WP:NOT#GUIDE by a mile. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but how does the current state of the article relate to the merits of the topic and how the article can be improved? --Kizor 05:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment The topic is about an element of game play specific to Half-Life 2, and as such fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of this mod outside of Half-Life, so the article merits deletion, not cleanup.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. First two sections are a game guide, nothing more; and the "official matches" bit is only supported by Valve's site and the devs' - neither of which are independent. Perhaps that section could be merged; as it stands there's no notability outside a narrow gaming community. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep Maybe condense, but I'm not sure which bits could be taken out without losing useful content. Skip1337 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep I am not submitting a second vote, but would like to make the note that some notability has been added beyond the mention of the Valve match. A PC gamer magazine (One of the more well known publications relating to PC games I believe) article covered HL2:CTF in their July 2005 issue, as well as the first Valve match (I have since made a correction to that section based upon the article). Once I am sure about policies on quotes, fair use of article sections and such, I can add more from the article. Any links are appreciated. PC Gamer is an independent magazine, and Valve involves far more than a "narrow gaming community" with a little research into counterstrike, team fortress 2, and the like, you will see a very broad sampling of people and organizations including cyber gaming leagues and the like. Other articles will cover that better. As for this entry, the PC gamer article further establishes credibility from a completely independent and respected source.Palehorse864 (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 20:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - the source for the valve match is PC Gamer, and assuming it isn't being cited inappropriately, that's a reliable source and establishes the subject's notability. The article wasn't nominated for failing WP:V, and since the subject itself is verifiable, any content that Gavin Collins wishes to challenge should be done on the article's talk page, to give the editors a reasonable opportunity to fix the problem as set forth in that policy. AfD only provides five days, which may not be enough time for editors who only have an hour or two per day to devote to Wikipedia, let alone to a single article on Wikipedia. WP:NOT#GUIDE applies to each article as a whole, not necessarily to sections of it - the two descriptive sections are not extensive, and so shouldn't cause concern. Applying WP's policies too rigidly is just being anally retentive. For example, if WP:V were applied vigorously by everybody, we wouldn't even have an article on Luke Skywalker. :) And 95% of Wikipedia would disappear. The Transhumanist 01:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak keep with no prejudice (see below) Weak delete Doesn't pass WP:N in my eyes, nobody could argue that PC gamer isn't a good source, but where are the rest? Without multiple independent sources there's never going to be a proper reception section, which is vital in almost all video game articles. No good sources are coming up in a search, though I'm having difficulty connecting to the mod's site for some reason. I'll take another look, but PC gamer alone doesn't cut it. Someoneanother 15:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment on above There is a bit more, but I haven't managed to get around to revising the article due to a heavy load of college school work and deadlines coming down during this time period. I have found sources that worked for other mods and games to gain notability and am looking toward adding these. I think the Valve match (Which would be notable if it were only for an established and respected game company hacking a mod to give themselves powers that don't exist within the game. A developer hacking their team's advantage into an official match (For fun mind you) may be a first in the video gaming world, considering there haven't been that many developer matches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.205.13 (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    If you're confident that the sources you have can pass notability then keeping the article for now and allowing sufficient time for you to get to it seems only fair. Changed accordingly. Valve's stunt is certainly worth covering, but the guts of game articles are 'gameplay', 'reception' and 'development'. At the very least a crisp gameplay section and a reception section with at least two separate views, along with reliable sources, are enough to sustain an article. If other editors agree that Planet Half-life's review (this one in particular), Mod Database review and/or Half-Life Fallout review could pass as reliable sources then I'd have no problem with it whatsoever - coupled with the PC Gamer review that'd make a reception section. Someoneanother 17:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy deleted per A7. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Piper (car)

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

    Delete another unsourced 1-line article about a small car maker that makes reproduction cars - does every autobody shop get an article around here? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete as appears to fail WP:N and possibly WP:V. Only source I could find from Google is a broken link ([63]). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete Does not meet notability. Unreferenced and short as well. Lady Galaxy 00:43, 23 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.