Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 31

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 02:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pompeia Paulina

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

I suggest that we delete this page because it simply repeats information available on the seneca the younger page. The statement that Paulina would have wanted to commit suicide because she was Seneca's wife is laughable and pure speculation. The only information we have is that given in Tacitus and it is poor historiography to imagine you can construct anything detailed about the actual events described. You cant write biographies on the basis of references in ancient authors as if you were writing modern biography. Seneca_2007 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Historical figure. Has been discussed in some of the 100s of books written about the period. The source for the contention, obviously, obviously, is Tacitus & the secondary sources given. sourcing is sufficient for notability. DGG (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain what else you plan to add to this page? What is here simply repeats what is on the seneca the younger page. Perhaps you could explain and cite the discussions of her "in some of the 100s of books written about the period". I think you will find the discussion of her in the scholarly literature exiguous. She may be mentioned in several books but it is only in connection with seneca's death. Seneca_2007 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Subject is covered in one of the few primary sources of the period and article includes several secondary sources. Just because the nominator thinks the article needs to be expanded but cannot is not grounds for deletion. The statement that Paulina would have wanted to commit suicide because she was Seneca's wife might be laughable, but it does not occur in the article which says she chose to attempt suicide because her husband had been ordered to do so. And when an Emperor intervenes to stop a suicide, that's an excellent indication the person is notable. Edward321 (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The article says "As Pompeia was wife of Seneca, Nero's tutor, it would be expected that she also wanted to die,". So yes the article does make the laughable suggestion. Who says it would be expected. Tacitus doesnt. This is just another example of sloppy work. Why dont we have pages and pages of wikepedia entries of all the people who are mentioned in Tacitus for whom there is no other information. Perhaps that could be a new project for someone who thinks that this sort of entry is useful. But no-one sems bothered by the fact that the information on this page repeats what is on the seneca page. Anyone clicking the link on paulina will simply find exactly the same information that they have already read. Seneca_2007 (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Also Giovanni Boccaccio has written about her in On Famous Women. Possible speculation and sloppy work need to be addressed on the editorial level as duplication of content (which would leave a redirect at the very minimum, but I don't think this is the case here.)--Tikiwont (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you prepared to do the work? Do you know anything about Roman History. The page on Boccaccio's famous women does little morer than list the women he wrote about. It is nothing more than a list and another poor piece of work.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Seneca 2007 (talk • contribs)

• Keep - Subject is well referenced with excellent primary and secondary sources. --Doug ^talk 13:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The page is not well referenced with excellent primary and secondary sources. Only one of the links for the secondary sources works and it does not offer any discussion it simply paraphrases Tacitus. I dont think you can have looked the references up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Seneca 2007 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vixen (film)

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

Film explicitly fails future film guidelines and asserts no notability. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - has not started shooting yet, fails guidelines above. --BelovedFreak 20:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete because an announced film in development does not at all guarantee for an actual film to be produced. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. The article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 08:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of modern deathrock bands

List of modern deathrock bands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

All modern death rock bands are already listed in Category: Death rock, which encompasses all death rock groups - not just "modern" ones. Funeral 23:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Deathrock, which is a small enough article to accomodate this small, indiscriminate list. Mandsford (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - as per Mandsford, that makes sense. If your intention is to have it deleted because there is also a Category of the same name, I still do not agree with you. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete However, the basis for this list is original research Corpx (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you mean that in the sense that Editors are labeling them as Deathrock? Does inclusion in a genre need citation ... or just simple consensus?Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, my comment was directed as a follow up to Mandsford's comment, but I didnt realize you had replied between the comments. As for the inclusion criteria, I would rather have a reliable source make the assertion. Corpx (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
      • That seems a bit harsh actually. Do we need Cites for SciFi writers saying they are SciFi writers or are we stating the obvious? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or merge, better as a category.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The same for List of classic deathrock bands. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 05:41, 5 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, proving once again that consensus can change. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pål Johan Karlsen

Pål Johan Karlsen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Orphaned, and notability is a problem here. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I fixed the broken nomination. I've nominated this for deletion once before (technically twice because of another broken nomination. I could really care less this time. It's certainly WP:AUTO, and it's of borderline notability. I think I'm going to think on this one for a while. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• SPEEDY KEEP. His notability ought to be judged incontrovertible. He writes for Norway's largest newspaper, his first novel was reviewed by Norway's second largest tabloid. His editor post puts him at the centre of Norwegian academia. __meco (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per meco's link, which provides significant coverage Corpx (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The paragraph on his novel is a copyvio of [1], and I have just removed it. Not notable as an academic--he is apparently still a postdoctoral fellow. Eight papers in Web of Science, highest citations 10, 6, 6. Editor is chief is often significant, but this journal (Journal of the Norwegian Psychological Association. = Norsk Psykologforening. Tidsskrift = Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening, ISSN 0332-6470) is a minor one, not in Web of Science or Scopus or even PubMed & is in only 1 US library--it apparently is a local society magazine. I cannot verify he is the editor in chief. The novel's single review is in a newspaper to which he contributes. He can not be in the center of Norwegian academia as a postdoc, though probably his advisor is, & should have an article. DGG (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per DGG and his thoughtful investigation of a cleverly done piece of self-promotion. Subject fails WP:PROF. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. He is notable in Norway as a writer. The number of scholarly papers and citations is not terribly high, but WP:BIO does not include any precise thresholds. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I'd rather keep something likely to grow than to delete and lose it altogether. Article is an excellent stub and needs improving through regular editing per WP:AfD. Expand and also use caution when labeling autobiography, it could be a fan or even a stalker of his or simply someone unaware of copyvio issues. I built an entire bio with permission from the author but was clueless, at the time, how to prove wikipedia had permission to use the content. We should encourage the addition of good content rather than punish for efforts up to now. Benjiboi 06:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• delete fails WP:PROF, one novel reviewed in one paper doesn't move me as a notable novelist. I don't see the "extensive coverage" in reliable secondary sources required to meet WP:N. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per DGG and Pete Hurd. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 21:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Javed Bolah

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

Procedural nomination; article was prodded, deleted, restored with message "15 revisions restored: contested prod" (?), reprodded, and deprodded (by me). Taking it to AfD to sort it out. Jfire (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Jfire (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources provided after being tagged with "unreferenced" for 12 months. If no reliable sources can be found (and I couldn't) the article should be deleted as failing WP:N. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 01:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I deleted and restored the article after being asked to do so. I also told the user that he/she should add references. If added, the article can be kept, otherwise deleted again. --Tone 14:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 22:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This article has had its chances and no one has stepped forward. A quick search makes me believe it is non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing in any language although I'd reckon a guess that there are a number of African papers which haven't made Google. Travellingcari (talk) 02:00, 2 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 -- Andrzej Kmicic gives a prefect reason. — Scientizzle 00:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nash Brennan and Jessica Buchanan

Nash Brennan and Jessica Buchanan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Tempted to speedy, but this doesn't fit neatly into any of the categories so I figured I'd go here. This page has very little information, each character here already has their own page. No new ground being broken, no indication that the couple is notable enough to warrant a page distinct from their individual pages. Gromlakh (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Scientizzle 22:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. There are articles Nash Brennan and Jessica Buchanan. No reason to have the third article about them. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of classic deathrock bands

List of classic deathrock bands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Besides the obvious POV vio in this list (who decides which bands are "classic" death rock), the bands in this list, along with "non-classic" death rock bands, are already listed within Category:Death rock. Funeral 22:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete agree with nom that its POV to classify bands into this genre Corpx (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Complete POV. Lugnuts (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete POV Doc Strange (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The same for List of modern deathrock bands. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andesu shônen Pepero no bôken

Andesu shônen Pepero no bôken (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability, orphaned, no external links etc. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment At least there's the article ja:アンデス少年ペペロの冒険 at Ja WP. Oda Mari (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Although articles on individual episodes of TV shows are being debated currently, I believe that broadcast series (especially those which air in multiple countries) are notable. Most of the deletion reasons presented in the nomination should be fixed by editing the article, not by deleting it. Neier (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  Comment I also recommend moving the article to Adventures of Pepero the Andes Boy, or at the very least, fix the unorthodox macrons. Neier (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  I moved the article to The Adventures of Pepero as that's the English title found on the film comics released in Japan. I redirected the above title to that one. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Nationally broadcast television shows are pretty much automatically considered notable, especially if like this they've been broadcast in multiple languages. The other two reasons given are cleanup issues, not reasons to delete. I note that the talk page was never tagged for the relevant wikiproject -- I've done that, and after saving this, I'm going to list this article in the project's page as needing attention/cleanup. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as the series is notable (having been translated from Japanese and broadcast in several languages around the world) and the article just needs to be cleaned up a bit. I have started this process and will work a little more on it later. Anyone who wishes to help cleanup the wording in the article is welcome to help. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Can we have a snowball keep or is it still too early for that? --Paularblaster (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• We might as well snowball keep. Nobody is going to seriously argue that a 26-episode globally broadcast TV series is not notable. --Gwern (contribs) 07:44 3 February 2008 (GMT)

• Comment: I've corrected some of the information in the article regarding staff and seiyū, and expanded that information as well. The article now has four reliable sources as references, and we can likely find more. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:37, 3 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. In spite of the lengthy defense of this article by many new or quasi-new contributors, the lack of authoritative sources (as the nominator puts it) about the author is and remains a fundamental problem. Fram (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adriano Bulla

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

I came upon this poet after his name was added to Metaphysical poets. After clearing out the wiki-mirrors used as references there doesn't seem to be anything here. He's published a couple of articles in national newspapers, but the only other sources are of dubious authority: [2], [3], [4]. I can't find anything to substantiate his notability. Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, I posted about 20 links to newspaper and magazine reviews of his work that have since4 yesterday been deleted.

KeepShall I point out that this poet is sold worldwide, and my links made clear that top-grade academics rate him as an outstanding poet. Also the very link above, greatworks, is opne of the most authoritative poetry webistes in the uk, and shall I point out that the article is signed by T Harrison? So, if you don't know you are talking about someone who is studied in most universities around the country, please DO NOT delete my links. It is also incorrect to say that he has published 'a couple of artcicles': his collection of poetry is available from Blackwells as well and Amazon. Moreover, there are [plenty of articles on him all over the internet. Now, the person above who has deleted more than half my links, would be pleased to know that it will take me time to re-intrioduce the 20 or so articles written on him. The 'couples of newspapers' mean no less than 'The Guardian', by the way, one of the most prestigioyus newspapers in the UK, and with a FEATURED article, not just a few words. So, whoever has nominated this article for deletion should actually look at the oputstanding achie3vements of an academic poet whiose work is by many regarded as great, instead of editing my own article deleting links to reviews of his work to make it seeem as if there is nothing on him on the net, and so cinically ignoring that his work is sold all around the world,. There was a list of more than 20 links to it just before this person decided to tamper with it.

Now, the fact that User:Ethicoaestheticist does not know of Adriano Bulla, is not reason enough to delete a published poet and critic, who has been featured in one of the most prestyigious newspapers in the UK, who has been reviewed by one of the most prestigious English poets and who is widely documented on the internet. As to the link to the metaphysical poetry, I would suggest that the above editor reads an article called 'the conceit of movement' ON Adriano Bulla published in no less than the Times Literary Supplement, which unfortunately is not online, but if we do not count the Guardian, the TLS and Greatworks online as authorities in poetry (He also is featured in Canned, by the way), against the word of a single editor on the basis of his own opinion, then THAT would be an insult to Wikipedia's notability standards. Bulla also appears in OTHER encyclopedias online, and the editor above has been so careful as to delete the links to these encyclopedias. I suggest User:Ethicoaestheticist reads some of his poetry (as I said, he can purchase it online all over the world, or contact Blackwells, a pretty famous distributor in the UK)and makes up for his/her own lack of information, rather than assuming that because s/he does not know him, the poet has never published, never been reviewed or never been featured in magazines, newspapers and webzines, and trys not to delete links to prove a point of 'non-notability' when a search on google will find hundreds of pages with the poet's name.

So, Ethicoaestheticist proposes to delete an article about a poet that s/he does not know by 1- stating the false ('a couple of artcicles' while famous retailers and worldwide online retailers have his poetry in stock), 2- duiscrediting sources (and I would like to see how s/he can discredit the Guardian or Greatworks) and reviewers (which says quite a lot, as they are all lecturers). Now, my case is simple, the poet DOES EXIST, HAS PUBLISHED (I actually posted the ISBN of one of his collections, so, let's try and discredit that now), his work IS AVAILABLE, reviews ARE AVAILABLE online and in magazines, authoritative 3rd party sources ARE PROVIDED, the opinion on his poetry is given in quotationsn, and yes, he is not an old poet, but given the fact that there are plenty of online and paper sources ON him, Wikipedia MUST feature him. Or is Ethicoaestheticist suggesting that no online source is fully traceable? Even there, sorry, but 'The Guardian' is, Blackwell is a one of the biggest book retailers in the UK (the biggest maybe?), unlike most sources on OTHER people who seem to be only online. My sources are online as well as online records of paper sources, therefore, sorry, there is no reason to doubt them (even ukpoetrylive, which by the way is an official poetry website, publishes a paper magazine, and the feature contributors there all have articles on Wikipedia, I don't see why Bulla should not....) Thanks. Now, my contribution to his article on the Metaphysical Powets comes from an online review of his poetry and a TLS (!!!!!!!!!!!!!) article about his poetry which SHOULD interest Ethicoaestheticist if s/he has any interest in metaphysical poetry, and I expressed it as 'some consider Adriano Bulla as a modern metaphysical' which is not deniable. When Dr Asbee (Cambridge University!!!! , the OU) says that in a review, I think it is worth mentioning. Ethicoaestheticist may not agree, but cannot deny that some critics see Bulla as such, and how can s/he not agree if by his/her own admission s/he has never read Bulla's work? Maybe before asking to delete the article Ethicoaestheticist should have bought one of Bulla's books and read it, and to his.her surprise, would have found that Bulla exists, writes, is published and is reviewed around the world. TonyBrit (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyBrit (talk • contribs) 10:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Looks OK to me to be honest, with the references that are provided.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• delete. He's written for the "The Guardian" - not been written about; "topgrade academics", however they might rate him, have not published on him in a peer-reviewed journals that can be traced through obvious finding tools (periodicals index online, periodicals archive online, project muse, jstor, ebsco, etc.: as a bit of an inclusionist I really have done my homework on this one); a TLS review would be enough to clinch it for me (see "inclusionist", above), but I can't find the alleged reference anywhere here or in the article; and no way should he be added to Metaphysical Poets, let alone get his own article, on the basis of a throw-away line in a newspaper review. --Paularblaster (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

keep one thing uis deleting the entry from the metaphysical poets, another thing is deleting a published and revied poet from wikipedia. If you dont agree hes ametaphysical, fair enough, but you canmt deny that he exists, hes been published, his books are available (I have them!) and is reviewed online. BY the way, yes, TonyBrit is right Dr Asbbe who reviewd him is cambridge lecturer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.26.72 (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It makes no difference whether he's a Cambridge lecturer when he isn't writing a peer-reviewed article or an academic book. Not everything a Cambridge lecturer happens to write on is necessarily notable, any more than anything they happen to mention in conversation. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep No doubt. 1- all articles here are supported by online evidence, so why not this one? It has online evidence on specialised websites. 2- It is clear that the aricle talks about a real published poet, some poems are available online and of course, there is the ISBN and the evidence that he is sold in the UK, Canada, France and Norway. 3- There is no reason to doubt what is said about the poet, as it is well supported by evidence. I do not see anything in the article that may suggest any hint of mendacity. 4- I for one have a copy of Ybo' and it IS an amazing collection. 5- It is clear from the quality of the articles ON him that they are very academic, one a very good study in comparative literature [5]. 5- Are we arguing that he shoud be deleted from the list of Metaphysical Poets? No problem, but the fact that he might not be a metaphysical does not mean that he does not exist, has not published and has not been reviewed. 6- Shouldn't Wikipedia be comprehensive? So why eliminate a poet that is sold in shops and reviewed while there are articles on much less significant people? Or should we only include articles on extremely famous people? He certainly is not the most famous poet around, but he must be known to have articles published on him in different websites, and nowadays it's so hard to publish poetry that of course having a whole collection published and sold in bookshops is a feat in itself. 7- I can see other authors who have been proposed for deletion, there is no comparison between the quality of the sources for A Bulla (different sources of established webistes) and the total lack of sources in the other authors. 8- I actually think it is a decently good article, factual and to the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.168.162 (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I exist and have written books that have been reviewed and read on three continents - it makes me a "real published historian"; it doesn't make me a notable historian. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Bulla's book is published by Poetry Monthly Press [6], which specialises in self-publishing. Here are their terms: [7]--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep of courseThere are actually more links on the Adriano Bulla article to sources than on the onbe on the Metaphysical Poets, so, if we simply go by the rule that we need evidence of notability, well, there is (on Wikipedia) more evidence about Bulla than the Metaphysicals themselves. Now, that the Metaphysicals are famous there is no doubt, but we canot use paper sources on wikipedia, so, as things stand, at the moment, the article on Bulla is better DOCUMENTED than the one on the metaphysicals. Whether his name should appear as a Metaphysical, it's a matter for the editor of that article to decide, but how can HE suggest that a better documented article should be deleted? I think it's a good article, balanced and what is the point in requesting paper sources that canot be quoted online? How many articles are there on wikipedia that refer to paper sources? Plus, it is evident from the article, the reviews and the poems themselves that Bulla is an extremely talented writer - if young. I find it rather upsetting that someone who allegedly likes poetry would like such a poet to be ignored. And what could be bad about having an article on a poet on wikipedia? Does it by any means hurt anybody to document the work of a talented writer? Even his newspaper article in the Guardian is extremely well written. I bought his collection from a bookshop, and yes, I appreciate his work and am pleased to see a some information on him here. I have also noticedfrom the vandalic attacks (some silly comments, like that he had chlamydia appeared) that seem to be proof that the article is receiving attention and the name is known, maybe not a best-seller so far, but do we only put best-sellers in Wikipedia? Most of the writers would need to go then... Now, Patience Agabi's article has only ONE source, and an online source. Should she be deleted? Even the article on Derek Walcott has about the same number of sources as Adriano Bulla's and of course all online - should the nobel prize winner be deleted? At least Bulla has a paper record in The Guardian and UKPoetryLive as a source. How can this be denied?

Again, The Guardian reference is not a source on him: it's an article by him. UKPoetryLive is "a source", but not what wikipedia requires: a reliable source; it's basically an "experimental poetry" fanzine. And "Adriano Bulla, whose articles on post-colonialism and on identity have been published in 'The Guardian', has agreed to write fierce article against the current canonisation of what he calls'minor amateurs'." Oh irony! --Paularblaster (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Never said it was ON him, as stated in my article, it is BY him. TonyBrit (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Above ukpoetrylive is 'basically a fanzine'. How inaccurate is that? ukpoetrylive is not anyone's fanzines but it collects and publishes articles on experimental poets, amongst others Mapanje etc... Read the editorial policy, all submissions need to be provided with contact details, only published writers can be reviewed, there are links to other sites, and it publishes its own paper format. By the way, Bulla appears in LINKS August 1998 ISSN 1366-4557, a specialised poetry magazine, and in Openings 16, 1999, an anthology published by the Open University. Plus I read that comment on amateurs, well, again (talk) misread the article in ukpoetrylive, Bulla seems to be meant to attack the examination boards, calling them amateurs. I suppose, again, that is his own opinion, but that is what criticism is all about. I agree with the comment above, there are plenty of poets here whose only source seems to be a reference online, I do not see what the problem with the sources on Bulla is. I have given varied sources ON him and by him, both greatworks.org.uk is a very establiseh site, with a clear editorial policy, a named editor and contacts, ukpoetrylive is all but a famzine, the articles there are of extremely high academic level, and contact details are available and must be provided to the editor on submitting articles, I have now given you two magazines where Bulla appeared. Now if your game is simply discrediting all sources, then I suppose we could delete half the poets on Wikipedia. I do not see different sources for most of the other contemporary poets on Wikipedia either, as stated by someone in a post above. Shall I make a list of poets whose only source is an online reference? I have emailed ukpoetrylive on the subject of the reliability of the webzine, informing them that (talk) calls it a 'fanzine', which is really against what is clearly stated in the editorial policy, and clearly does not accept articles that are not of good academic standard. I still would like (talk) to get in touch with greatworks.org and tell them that they, despite being one of the mostauthoritative organisations (.org) online when it comes to poetry, should be regarded as liars. (talk) assumes that sources that are regarded as reliable on their own for other poets should be regarded as non reliable for Mr Bulla. Why? Double standards? TonyBrit (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If half the poets on wikipedia could only be referenced to websites like ukpoetrylive then yes, they should be deleted. Please list them. Reviews in reputable (fact-checking) newspapers and discussions in peer-reviewed academic texts, as well as certain types of edition are of a completely different order of verifiability and notability (which is not to say that ukpoetrylive does not partially meet both descriptions, but I'm sure the editor would be the first to tell you it doesn't entirely meet either). As I said, a review in the TLS would be quite sufficient for me, but although one has been claimed to exist it is referenced neither here nor in the article. I would say you seem to have a much lower opinion of fanzines than I have; personally I have nothing against them except that they don't meet the guidelines on verifiability. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep There isn't only ukpoetrylive that Paularblaster keep banging on about, there is also greatworks.org.uk. And Blackwells and stuff. I think that there are quite enough sources to establish that what is said is true. Also, first Paularblaster said ukpoetrylive was a fanzine, now it meets some of the standards. Well, some of the standards met by ukpoetrylive, all met by greatworks, the Guardian - which is there as a reference to him as critic maybe- and what is his problem? Shouldn't wikipedia try to provide AS MANY SOURCES as possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.254.89 (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that it was one of the people here who "keeps banging on about" ukpoetrylive - after I pointed out that the references to The Guardian are to pieces of journalism written by the subject, rather than pieces about him written by someone else. The reaction to my mention of fanzines, and the apparent belief that my further remarks indicate some sort of retraction of the comparison, reveal unsuspected depths of snobbery. Any decent fanzine would meet some of the standards; the point is that they don't fully meet the standards. And in that respect greatworks.org.uk is certainly no more a reliable source than ukpoetrylive is. Wikipedia should be striving, in the first instance, not for lots of sources but for one or two policy-compliant sources; which is to say: references in other encyclopedias and reference works (no matter how specialized in scope), major newspapers, top-level academic textbooks, peer-reviewed academic works. Just find one of these to demonstrate this writer's notability in a verifiable manner, and the article is sure to be kept and can then be fleshed out from things like ukpoetrylive at will. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

On what basis does Paularblaster discard ukpoetrylive (partially) then neglects greatworks.org.uk? He wanted paper evidence? I have given an Open University anthology and another magazine, all registered publications.

An example of a poet who has an unreliable source? Gillian Clarke, her own website is cited as the main source and a small biography on an unofficial site about Welsh poets [8][sohttp://gillianclarke.co.uk/home.htm], . Delete her then. No reviews ON her are given, no proof of her importance as a writer is cited. So, my article is actually supported by MORE EVIDENCE and 3rd party evidence, Gillian Clarke's isn't. Double standards?TonyBrit (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the subject being anthologized, if you read the policies and guidelines again (and yes, I know we shouldn't be slaves to them) you'll see that writers being published is not sufficient; they have to be written about in secondary publications of the type detailed at WP:V. Arguments that an article should be kept because strictly comparable articles have not (yet) been deleted are generally discouraged (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), but if you do really think that Gillian Clarke cannot be edited up to scratch, then do please nominate the article for deletion. As I've already said, I'm not much of deletionist so if you could just give the reference to the TLS review you mentioned I'll be able to check it when I'm in the library on Thursday and will happily withdraw my seconding of the nomination for deletion. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep I have been invited to comment on this article. I am the editor of ukpoetrylive.page.tl. I do not know the poet personally, but do know his work, as it appears many other people on Wikipedia.org. I must strongly object to the comment posted by Paularblaster above, that ukpoetrylive is a 'fanzine', and I am pleased that the same has later on changed his mind. Our editorial policy is very clear, only published writers can be reviewed, we check every reviewer's details, which must be given to us, and we do not accept articles from amateurs or of low academic standards. I find it very unfair to have my site defined a'fanzine'. I understand a fanzine to be a website set up to promote an artist, while mine only accepts very academic articles, and we do have difficulty finding articles that satisfy our standards, and does not promote any artist, it simply records academic studies, rather than reviews on experimental poets in the English language. We do not have any direct contact with the artists. In Adriano Bulla's case, I must say that he is the most visited poet on our website. All our featured poets have an article in Wikipedia, and links are provided. The articles on him are undoubtedly of very good standards. Should Paularblaster wish to contact me, I would be pleased if he sent me an email. Personally, I first heard of Mr Bulla from a friend, a lecturer, who introduced me to his work. I bought his collection online and did a google search to know more about him. I found an article on him in greatworks.org.uk, a very established poetry website, which also has a biography of the poet that seems to match what is reported on wikipedia. We have recently contacted Mr Bulla through his school, the prestigious Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham College in London and asked him to contribute a review, having been impressed by his style in the article he published in The Guardian. He has accepted but such review is not ready yet. The reason why we have contacted him is that, as stated above, we DO find it difficult to have submissions that satisfy our academic standards. Other featured poets in our websiuite are J Mapanje and P Agabi, however, we have found less good quality work on them than on Mr Bulla. Ukpoetrylive (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

-+

No offence intended; I clearly take a higher view of fanzines than Mr Bulla's fans do. My own notion of a fanzine is not that it is a promotional website (or indeed any kind of website, or any kind of promotion), but that it is a publication by which fans can share their reflections on the subject of their enthusiasm - reflections that can be complex and profound. I was much impressed, in just this respect, by the zine of the Charles University Tolkien Society. It is a form of publication for which I feel much affection, but sadly it does not fit wikipedia's guidelines on sources, and so far as I can tell ukpoetrylive does not either; as the ways in which they do not are strictly comparable I saw no harm in drawing the parallel, which was intended to elucidate rather than to belittle. I have explored your site, and bookmarked it for further reference, but even with the undoubtedly high intellectual tone it strikes me very much as being about sharing an enthusiasm (in the best tradition of the fanzine), rather than about enforcing the rigorous policies that should typify academic peer-review or media fact-checking. The way that you encourage readers to send in reviews is one of the things that weighed in my assessment. Other editors may think otherwise - these discussions are all about reaching consensus. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep I wonder what Paularblaster means by peers? University lecturers certaibnly have a right to publish well written articles on poets they have studied, as they do on our site. We DO NOT ALLOW anybody to post, all posts come through the editor, it is not a free for all'. Paularblaster uses rhetoric, 'it strikes me' 'enthusism' to DISTORT facts as stated. If a Cambridge lecturer published an article ABOUT him (Sue Asbee) that means at least a peer has talked about him, not to talk about the other 4 signed articles available online. His comment on our forthcoming article BY A Bulla, (quote 'the current canonisation of what he calls'minor amateurs'." Oh irony!') seems to imply that Mr Bulla should be deleted because he has no right to express his views and is not FACTUAL nor relevant to the point, unlike our page, which IS factual.Paularblasteris therefore using irony to prove a point about whether the Wikipedia article is supported by online evidence. I will tell him, irony does not count as evidence! We are as a site non-committal with regard to Mr Bulla's views on the examination boards, but will not prevent Mr Bulla from expressing his views on his peers, as long as his article meets our academic standards. We also find that he should have kept the argument factual insteead of using sarcasm. No wghere in the deletion policies here is written that if someone posts a sarcastic comment on a poet he should be deleted. Paularblaster may disagree with Mr Bulla's views, but that does not give him a right to DISTORT FACTS. I suggest that if he disagrees with Mr Bulla's views he reads the article and provides us with a counter article, if it meets our standards and we are given his contact details, he will receive a call from us to discuss the publication of his work on our website. We do not appreciate PaularblasterPERSONAL assessment of our site as 'sharing enthusiasm' about poetry therefore being a fanzine. Of course a site about poetry has an INTEREST in poetry, butb all our articles are traceable, well written and highly academic. What he UNDERSTANDS to be a fanzine does not make our site a fanzine, as what he understands is not FACTUAL. A fanzine is a promotional site dedicated to an artist, not a general site about poetry where academics can post. Moreover, every submission is screened, publication on our website is not open to every 'fan'. I find Paularblasteruses HIS opinions to prove a point, and why should we listen to his opinions against signed articles by academics that have provided contact details? We do not claim to be a famoyus website like www.greatworks.org.uk where Mr Bulla is reviewed more in detaiil and where there is a biography of the writer (which Paularblaster keeps ignoring), however, we ARE a serious poetry website. So far, our counter says that more than 1,200 people have read the articles on Mr Bulla, which tells us that there is interest in the poet, given the fact that such articles are not easy to read and poetry is not read by many in the UK. Paularblaster seems to be on a personal crusade against Mr Bulla and our site. As someone posted above, a lot of other poets, including Gillian Clarke, are supported only by what really is OPENLY a fansite as evidence for a Wikipwedia article. Our site is about experimental poetry, not Mr Bulla alone, who is ONE of our featured artistrs, not the only one. Paularblaster also seems to be fighting a very lonely battle on the whole, as it appears that the great majority of posts on this thread are against his views, and more for FACTS. Ukpoetrylive (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Ukpoetrylive might like to try reading Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_Wikietiquette, as well as deleting one of his duplicate "keep" recommendations. I can assure User:Ukpoetrylive that I am not on a "personal crusade" against Mr Bulla; when the article on him was nominated for deletion I looked for sources to save the article and could find none that conform to wikipedia guidelines and policies. Since simply pointing this out I have been inundated with comments and replies (the "great majority of posts" referenced by User:Ukpoetrylive, although all posted either by one IP or another, or by User:TonyBrit, so it's moot just how many people are involved in the discussion). These replies, I feel bound to point out, indulge in all the classic non-reasons such as WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFF, irrelevant appeals to authority along the lines of "this was said by an academic" (flattering to us academics, but not useful in this context), insinuations of some sort of ulterior motive from WP:SPAs who themselves might benefit from reading WP:COI, and still nothing to establish Mr Bulla's notability in terms of wikipedia guidelines and policies. Sorry for the list of jargon, but it is almost comical how every trick in the book is being put on display, as though in a deliberate showcasing of bad AfD arguments. I won't go into the various (mis)readings of my own arguments immediately above, since they hardly seem to be to the point. --Paularblaster (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not an experienced commentator, in fact I have joined just because invited. So forgive me for not following all these strange etiquette rules. However, everybody can contact me, my email is on my website, and what I say has no less value because I know little of wikipedia acronyms than others. Thanks Ukpoetrylive (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

keep notability proved in greatworks.org.uk and backed up. credible article Logastellus (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment A source needs to be found to substantiate the claim that Sue Asbee [9] has indeed written an article about the poet, whether in an academic journal, a newspaper or even on a credible website. The reference in the article is to this [10], which is clearly inadequate (and gives the name as A.Asbee). It occurred to me that since Asbee teaches at the OU and it has been claimed in this discussion that Bulla's work appears in an Open University anthology, that perhaps Asbee once said some nice words about her students' work, and that is where all this is coming from, but that is just conjecture. By the way, the Openings website makes clear that the "The magazine is not considered a publication per se, rather it is produced by the members for members"[11]. The Openings anthology homepage is here: [12].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The flaw with the argument here is thatEthicoaestheticist and Paularblaster show problems with SOME of the sources, however they do not tackel the main source I provide. Not everything on the net is 100% reliable, we know that, but assuming that PART of the sources are not reliable while ignoring my main source is not an argument that stands. As to Dr Asbee, well, I did not even enter that source to start with and have entered the comment carefully, also because there are some typos in that review. It is by NO MEANS what my article's reliability rests on. I will here point out again that iit is requested that there is a reliable and verifiable 2nd part source (http://greatworks.org.uk) by the guidelines. FAILING this (!!!!!!!) a series of different sources should be provided. I have provided different sources ON TOP of the first one. I would really invite the two supporters of deletion to comment on this. Attacking back up sources and ignoring the main source is not a reason to delete. TonyBrit (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Paularblaster proposes deleting the article on the basis that he /she thinks ukpoetrylive is not a reliable source. My counter-agrument is that...

1- IT IS NOT THE ONLY SOURCE PROVIDED. http://www.greatworks.org.uk is one of the most authoritative poetry websites in the UK and has a more comprehensive review of Bulla's work than ukpoetrylive as well as a biography. So far s/he has completely neglected the other sources provided and has turned the argument into a discussion about ONE OF THE WEBSITES provided.

2- OTHER POETS HAVE FAR LESS RELIABLE SOURCES. As I have pointed out, Gillian Clarke has just her own website as a source (that is a 'fanzine'), no review of her poetry at all, yet that seems to be sufficient.

3- SOURCES CAN BE OF ANY MEDIA, according to the guidelines, well, I have provided sources in paper form and on the net. Different ones all saying the same thing. However, Paularblaster is now asking me to provide a hyper link to a paper source. That is not possible and I have provided publication and ISSN of an Open University Anthology and previous publications. These ARE NOT ONLINE. I would like then to see the same treatment for other articles. I do not see paper sources for most poets or writers on here, I have provided reference for Mr Bulla, and still Paularblaster is not satisfied.

4- HIS COMMENTS ARE NON FACTUAL. Use of sarcasm will not prove anything. S/he should read the editorial policy of ukpoetrylive and not assume that the site accepts evrey submission. S/he seems to think that it is a 'blog'. It simply isn't, and is not backed up by other than his 'impression'.

5- UKPOETRYLIVE is not a 'fanzine'. Which shows that Paularblaster is willingly attacking a source. It appears that the website does not allow anybody to post freely on it. It checks all its contributors' details and expects very high academic standards. The editor has offered his availability to be contacted. Still, Paularblaster talks about his/her IMPRESSION (!!!!!) that the website is 'enthusiastic' about poetry as being unreliable. This is not in the guidelines. Nowhere is it written that specialised websites sshould be disinterested in their subject matter. It is a 3rd party website (and NOT THE ONLY ONE PROVIDED). Its policy is clear. I wonder what 'IMPRESSION' s/he has of Gillian Clarke's own website? Is it a 3rd party website? Is it not related to the author? I have provided a few examples where poets are included with sources that are no where near as reliable as the ones I have included. And why should his/her 'IMPRESSION' matter so much? Impressions are not facts.

6- I have provided a list of bookshops that sell Bulla's work. It is shown as available in different countries all over the world. This is not bad for a poet (we may remember that poetry is not as common as novels etc...)

7- There have been different comments on this article by different people. Paularblaster quickly discards them all (I count 4 different signed people), yet forgets that s/he is alone in his/her argument. I checked the other articles for deletion. I do not see the same INTEREST as in this poet's article. Not only, I see that most articles are very weak and really provide no 3rd party sources at all. This is a different case altogether.

8- S/He wants reviews by peers, yet does not accept lecturers as peers?

9- S/he does not seem to realise that for a poet to have 1,200 hits on a very academic article on him in a few months is a certain sign of notability. Or does he deny that there is a counter at the bottom of the ukpoetrylive page?

As to the link to the Metaphisical poets, as I have said, the author of the Metaphysical poets has every right to exclude Bulla from the list, but to delete an article on a poet altogether, backed up by online and paper evidemce, well, that's far too much.

I rest my case. TonyBrit (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

comment. 1. User:Paularblaster has already addressed the issue of multiple sources: the point is not numbers of sources but compliance with policy and guidelines; 2. User:Paularblaster has already provided a link to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; 3. see 1, and please recognize that User:Paularblaster has not asked for a hyperlink to a paper source; s/he has asked for a reference (not a link) so that a repeatedly but vaguely mentioned paper source can be checked; 4. User:Paularblaster has been consistently patient and polite, and has clearly indicated when his/her comments have been fact and when opinion; 5a. User:Paularblaster is appalled at the depths of snobbery elicited by his/her mention of fanzines, which is not a term indicating an attack, and suggests that some of the contributors to this discussion might like to read Fanzine just so that they know what one is; 5b. far from saying that enthusiasm for a topic is a bad thing, User:Paularblaster has referred to enthusiasm only in the context of defending fanzines from the outraged vituperation of snobs; 5c. fanzines do not print anything anyone happens to send in, and vary greatly in how scholarly they are, so the way in which ukpoetrylive differs from a more scholarly fanzine (one example of which has been mentioned a few posts previously) has yet to be established; 5d. Gillian Clarke is still a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS no matter how many times she is mentioned; 5e. User:Paularblaster's impressions matter because if User:TonyBrit wants to form a positive consensus he will have to convince other editors (of whom User:Paularblaster is one) that s/he can actually provide policy-compliant sources; 6. User:Paularblaster can provide a far from exhaustive international list of bookshops selling User:Paularblaster/Publications, but would not expect that to be counted as a verified assertion of his/her notability; 7a. User:Paularblaster might be forgiven for thinking that the consistent style of the postings in favour of the article (HisSpaceResearch's "weak keep" excepted) would justify a usercheck; 7b. User:TonyBrit seems to forget that User:Paularblaster came here initially to defend the article from deletion but was forced to conclude that the nominator, a different editor, was correct in seeing the article as one that fails to meet wikipedia's really rather modest requirements; 7c. User:Paularblaster regularly reviews articles nominated for AfD and proposed for deletion with the intention of saving articles that can be improved, and is struck by the extent to which this nomination has elicited responses (again with the exception of HisSpaceResearch) only from passionately invested SPAs, IPs, and from User:Paularblaster (who is thoroughly enjoying this discussion, but couldn't care less about Adriano Bulla except in so far as his inclusion meets wikipedia's guidelines); 8. "peer-reviewed" does not mean that Bulla's peers have reviewed his work, it means that a piece of writing by one academic has been subjected to anonymous scrutiny by one or more other academics before being published; it is also used more widely to mean the various related safeguards to academic quality that academic publishing maintains (such as sending books out to known experts for review, rather than inviting readers to send in reviews, as ukpoetrylive does); 9. ukpoetrylive has a counter on the site - I'm not sure that that meets WP:N or WP:V, let me just check ....; 10. (unnumbered postscript in original post) it is not the case that "the author of the Metaphysical poets has every right to exclude Bulla from the list": the author of the article, by posting it on wikipedia, has made it common (intellectual) property to be edited by any other editor; you have done the same; wikipedia is not a collection of single-authored articles, but a collection of mass-co-edited articles, and its contents are subject not to authorial preference but to community consensus. If you have any new infomation that would shed light on this matter please do post it. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

keep A good article with good reference. Blueswan1967 (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)— Blueswan1967 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am pleased to see that User:Paularblaster entered the discussion to keep the article. But s/he is still dodging the question of http://www.greastworks.org.uk and keeps talking about ukpoetrylive. The most comprehensive information on A Bulla comes from the former, not the latter, which is used as an extra source. I do not feel there is any snobbery. I simply commented on the use of sarcasm and 'impression'. TonyBrit (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have posted many sources and I do not understand the problems Paularblaster has with them, so, I will go through them one by one.

1 - http://www.greatworks.org.uk/poems/thab.html It is a very famous poetry website, has a rather comprehensive academic article written by T Harrison on A Bulla, which clearly states that A Bulla is a force in literature to be recognised. User:Paularblaster has not commented on this source at all, yet, it is thee main source fror my article.

2- http://www.greatworks.org.uk/texts.html the same website with a biography of A Bulla, which matches what is in my article.

3 - http://www.ukpoetrylive.page.tl User:Paularblaster seems to have reservations about this site. Yet, S C Gale, the editor has joined in on my request and re-iterated that the site only accepts academic articles by academics whose contact details are checked. SC Gale also states that the rather hard to read articles on him in the website he moderates were read by 1,200 people in the last few months. That certainly is a lot for a poet, and given the high quality of the articles, one would not expect that number. The counter at the bottom of the pages shows quite a few visits (up to 100) a day and in their LINKS page, A Bulla seems to be more popular than all the other featured poets. On this very day so far, 88 people have read reviews of his poetry on this website according to the counter. That ADDS proof to the notability argument which, as I have said mainly rests on http://greatworks.org.uk All this is recorded DESPITE the editor, if I am not mistaken. Please check out the editorial policy of ukpoetrylive http://www.ukpoetrylive.page.tl/SUBMISSIONS.htm I do not see where they contradict wikipedia policies , i.e. 'the subject of published[2] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[3] and independent of the subject.[4]'

4 - http://www.scilt.stir.ac.uk/Languagesnews/TEFL/tefl200381.htm This is the Scottish Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research. It's a National and official website related to the University of Stirling. I have included this reference to prove that A Bulla has status in the academic world, and the article pertains Post-Colonial policies.

5- http://education.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4811005-108281,00.html is from The Guardian. Now, I have never said that there are articles on HIM in the Guardian, but BY him, (from my article 'He has also published in 'The Guardian). That article was the featured article of the week. It is there to prove the point that Mr Bulla has credibility as a commentator/critic, and I do not see where User:Paularblasterhas read that I said there are articles ON him in the Guardian. There may as well be, but I have no evidence of that.

6- I have just added 'Openings' 1999, The Open University. This is an anthology. It is there to back up my point that his first publications were in the late 90s. I do not have a copy of the anthology, but I am sure it is available from the Open University. I am sure this adds to the point that Mr Bulla must be regarded as having some literary status and influence if the Open University decided to include him in an anthology.

7- LINKS August 1998 ISSN 1366-4557, This is a poetry publication,, it is there to prove that his first publications were in the 1990s, at least that we know of.

8- http://www.critiquesdelivres.com/1905126182 is there to show a comment on his work by Dr Asbee. It is a French website, I do not know how reliable it is, but it is of little relevance to us, given all the links above.

Now, I do not think Mr Bulla is a household name. Most, even influential, poets are NOT in fact. This is the reason why I have produced a series of links all showing his literary status and recognistion in the academic world. His 'notability' is in my opinion widely proven in the academic world. There are academics and academies that have either published his work or work ON him.

As to Gillian Clarke, of course I do not expect her to be deleted, my point is simply that there isn't as much online evidence of her 'notability' and yet she is still included. The editors may know her, but that does not make her necessarily notable.

For a modern poet to have 4 articles on him published online by academics, it is quite a lot, as we do not find the same amount of evidence on a lot of other poets.

The TLS, I said it appears to be from an article, I do not have that copy of the TLS therefore I have NOT included it in my sources nor in my article. I have just retreived LINKS and a refernece to 'Openings'. But do we expect an article i8n the TLS for all writers on Wikipedia? That would be impossible, also because the TLS do not come in e-format.

I think there is plenty of evidence to show that Mr Bulla is a respected author in academic circles and read pretty widely for a poet, especially a 'highbrow' one like him (a poetry book would sell well with 2000 copies in the UK, we are talking about a similar number of readers for CRITICISM on his poetry....)

From the notability guidelines of Wikipedia: 'A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[2] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[3] and independent of the subject.[4]'

All these are met by http://www.greatworks.org.uk/poems/thab.html alone (no one has dared discredit this site, neither User:Paularblaster nor Ethicoaestheticist), PLUS I have a list of websites and paper publications to back it up. So, I think my article meets the basic guideline listed above, attacking back up soources while ignoring my main ones seems to be, sorry to say that, creating a diversive, a smoke screen to divert attention from the main source. Therefore, unless my main sources can be discredited, I do not see any reason for deletion. One could actually argue the other way round: i.e. that sources whose reliability may not be certain are validated by the matching information in reliable sources. In the end, that's what Wikipedia does: it is not itself a reliable source, but as long as the information matches what's available on reliable sources, it is generally considered accurate. My secondary sources match what appears in the main ones, which no one has discredited, so they very likely are fairly reliable....TOO. TonyBrit (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of reliable published sources about the poet and his works. None of above mentioned or what i can find myself cuts it for me, including Great Works. until there is more substantial coverage which I surely wish to Adriano Bulla, we should also consider Flicker poem --Tikiwont (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I disagree with Tikiwont editorial policy of greatworks.org.uk clearly matches WP:N so do other sources. Logastellus (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If that is their opinion, Logastellus (talk · contribs) may want to consider to actually start editing and write an article on that site.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Tikiwont says that none of the sources 'cuts it for me'. Now, with all respect, that is a bit vague. Being a Middle Temple Barrister myself, I would argue that if there is a policy, the sources either comly with the policy or don't. ShouldTikiwont state in what respects greatworks.org.uk does not comply to the Wikipedia policies, I would myself comply with a deletion, but I would need to know why this does NOT comply to the policy.

In detail:

This is from the Wikipedia Policy:

' topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

"Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.[1] Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.[2] "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.[3] "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[4] "Sources,"[5] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[6] "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[7] A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.'

[[13]]

To start with, an article should be PRESUMED to be notable unless there is a specific fault with the sources, while some commentator here are presuming non-notability on the basis of their opinion (I quote 'without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors'.) This clearly contradicts the Wikipedia policy above. It's like in court when we presume someone innocent.

Now the criteria to prove that a source is not acceptable are as follow (again, from the policy)

"Significant coverage" "Reliable" and "verifiable" "sources" as secondary sources "Independent of the subject" meaning not produced by the subject of the article.

I would like to know which of these criteria are not met, otherwise, we should presume notability. If there is a policy, we should stick to it.

Now, www.greatworks.org.uk covers A Bulla with an extensive review, which makes up most of the article in Wikipedia (see references to it in the article) therefore, it would be absurd to say that there is no significant coverage. Other sources comply with this.

I would like to know then, if www.greatworks.org.uk is for the above commentator, not reliable or verifiable. As per usual, contact details are provided which means it is verifiable. I will also point out that it is a prestigious poetry website, so well above "reliable" in all respects. If anyone could find fault with the website's reliability or verifiability, then it would not fit the policy's criteria.

"Independent of the subject" it certainly is. It is an impartial poetry website edited by Peter Philpott which has been running for quite a long time.

Moreover I would point out that despite some comments on ukpoetrylive, this site too matches all the above - though not as famous as greatworks.org.uk, it provides verifiable details, it is independent from Mr Bulla, is a secondary source and gives coverage in detail of some of Mr Bulla's poems.

Again, 'detractors' have called it 'fanzine' or generally addressed it as not good enough, but no one has yet told me where this website too fails in relation to the specific notability guidelines in the policy.

They either comply or not. If not, I would kindly like to know how they do not comply. 'It doesn't cut it for me' or 'it's enthusiastic' etc are nice comments, but do not refer to the policy.

So, There sould not be any doubt about the fact that the sources do establish notability.

There are then The Guardian and other websites too, but I am not entering into the old argument, these provide, again evidence of some of the information I have provided.

I would like to point out some other fallacies in the arguments put forward, which, though absolutely marginal to the point of notability, I feel I have to debate. 1- Arguing that one source is not reliable (and I myself am not convinced about critiquedelivres, because it seems that to post a comment one simply needs to email them and confirm, unlike other sites, but the information there is similar to what we find in other articles) all the others should be disregarded.

I read a comment above that being included in 'Openings' does not constitute publication. we all know that poetry anthologies often have the proviso 'it does not constitute publication' for copyright reasons, that, however, does not detract from the fact that the Open University have included A Bulla in one of their anthologies.

I will therefore change the article from 'published in Openings' to 'included in Openings, amn anthology published by the Open University', and I do wonder what the difference in academic terms will be... none?

Some commentators have arguesd using a lot of Wikipedic slang. Well, if a comment does not use the exact slang, that does not detract from the validity of the comment. As I read in the deletion policies, the final judgement should be made on the arguments presented.

On the other hand, this use of wikipedic slandg (which I myself am not familiar with) seems to me to miss the point, lots of acronyms and re-directions but I have seen little reference to the particular criteria of the notability policy and no evidence as to how these sources do not meet such specific criteria. I have seen a presumption of non-notability, on the other hand, an attemt to discredit sources without pinpointing where the sources fail and sometimes using humour, often saying 'for me'. Well a policy is a policy. Point to where each source fails, and if you manage to prove that each source is unreliable, delete. Call my sources whatever you want, but if they meet the precise critera... Keep... This is the policy and it's independent from the editors' views... stated in the policy itself We have a contract, we either stick to it or not. Thanks. TonyBrit (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well as you say greatworks.org.uk is a self published website, and these are in general not considered sufficiently reliable per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 That policy seems to be clear enough to me and as far as I'm concerned, it applies to the mentioned sources about the subject, whether or not you consider some of them prestigious or famous, since this assertion is again not backed up by reliable sources that write about the websites.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment i don't have an account and i can't sign but have read this with interest. I've already posted and I see that I agree with TonyBrit. There are rules which either the article breaks or not. I can't see where they are broken. please point out in detail where the sources do not work, otherwise it's just your opinion. That's not enough. Now, even above where someone says IP rather than user, so what? I am an IP, I have no account and don't want one. But is this an open forum? Is it not meant to be about the content of wht we say, not who we are? And who are the signed ones? Are wikipedia's user acounts verifyable? And the policy says about the argument not about who we are. Very week argument 4 deletion backed up by a lot of vague comment, slang, but no reference to the policy in detail . Very strong and detailed argument 2 keep and just based on deletion policy Keep, no doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.254.89 (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Erroneous, Tikiwont, http://www.greatworks.org.uk cannot be considered a self-published website. It is a poetry website which has no relation whatsoever to Mr Bulla. Unless we consider every website a 'self-published site'. Again, it is clear from your guidelines that no websites published about the subject and by the subject should be included. Now, despite the fact that other authors are in Wikipedia and supported by their own webpage, www.greatworks.org.uk is not a self-published site but a trust (.org) and is by no means related to A Bulla. ukpoetrylive is a freestanding website and by no means related to A Bulla. I would like to see how far we can go and argue that no website is per se a verifyable source.

From Wikipedia:

'Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable'

The site does not match any of the above or the further specification

' "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.'

I would point out that www.greatworks.org.uk is deposited with the British Library (should therefore have an ISSN and the names of the publishers, editors, contributors and copyrights should be deposited).

[14]

Again, this is a third party (and what more than the British Library?) That gusrantees the verifyablility of the site. I would really like to see how many sources can claim as much by any means... Backed by the British Government! [15] (I count 5 in the whole world, and mine is one of them...) What more does one need? On top of that, 2 .ac (academies - again official educational insitutions recognised by the UK, not any website, by those 700 or so MPs that sit in that very famous building called Westminster Parliament, its government anf HM The Queen) and despite these sites having such seal of approvals as the gates of the houses of common and the Royal emblem, here we are arguing that they are not veryfiable? Well, this is a paradox. Now, let's check most of the articles on Wikipedia and see how many have the same guarantors as official stamps from the the UK government. Come on!!! You 'state it's a self-published site, but it simply is not and is not published by Mr Bulla and is Backed by the British Library.

I do think we are becoming ridiculous with this argument. The 'delete' party have been trying to discredit sources all along, not giving detailed reference, and when they did, they stumbled across no less than the British Library itself, the UK Government institution that is the guarantor of all UK publications.

If I had to request the same amount of 'officiality', 'veryfyability' to all articles, Wikipedia would be reduced to about 200 articles altogether.

I rest my case. Go and tell the British Library that they have been mistaken and should not archive and put their seal on www.greatworks.org.uk now. When I get a formal letter from the British Library, I will consider deleting the article. So far, there is no way we can try and discredit the reliability og greatworks.org.uk your opinion against the official seal of the British Government.

I told you I am a Barrister (Middle Temple- check it up). I teased all the 'delete' party to discredit www.greatworks.org.uk in order to prove that one can say whatever one wants on a website and 'tag' a website whatever one wants, unless... unless... there is an official stamp on it and www.greatworks.org.uk, it escaped most of our detractors, simply has the biggest seal of reliability of all: the British Library. Paularblaster Ethicoaestheticist were wiser, they did not attack my main source despite my teasing them, but limited their argument to vaguely showing some doubts about back-up sources. Tikiwont attacked my main source, now, s/he has to explain to me whether the British Government is not enough to guarantee the reliability of my source...

Endgame. Your honour, I rest my case.

TonyBrit (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

From the UK Web Archiving Consortium: "The inclusion of any web site in this UK Web Archiving Consortium archive does not necessarily constitute endorsement of the information held on those sites" [16]. the site is archived by the Consortium (or at least was in 1996 2006), but does not guarantee its reliability. Here is a list of another 171 literature websites being archived: [17].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, my above remark refers to self-publishing not in the sense of published by Bulla, but to self published by someone (Peter Philpott). I did indeed not noctice the note about archiving by the BL. I did notice, however, that neither the site nor the person have curently an article. That might of course be an omission, but on the other hand the site is hardly linked to from other wikipedia articles apart from those related to Bulla [18] So I may or may not have been wise, and i am certainly not a barrister, but I certainly do not aim at 'attacking' or discredit sites or sources, but was just trying to help to built consensus here. Therefore, I am mildly dissapointed that possibly useful information has been held back for the sake of playing games and lengish tirades. That the site is archived as part of a project at the British library is interesting and might require further investigation.

Which could have been doen already if put on the table, but has now been initiated above. As far as I see this amounts to 2 editions in 2006, and it is not clear whetehr they include the text on Bulla (and actually it does not seem to be the case). Nor do I see how this amounts to an ISSN which isn't necessary anyway. While I am not convinced that this seals the issue or that all adds already up to notability, I am not on a case here. Rather I'd appreciate a relisting of thsi discussion, possibly with the so far contributors stepping back.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment All issues get archived by the British Library, of course the article on Mr Bulla is not archived yet, but will be in due course. I do believe that the British Library 'seal of approval' on the website is clear. I did not hold back information. I kept saying that previous 'delete' suggestions were based on a source that was not my main source, and that there was no doubt about the reliability of my main source. The article is clearly mainly based on greatworks, ukpoetrylive is used to develop some themes (the articles in there are more limited in scope if more detailed). I have used the Guardian and Scotticsh CILT to prove that Bulla's contributions to Postcolonial Studies are accredited by academic insitutions. I have now provided a list of 3 major bookshops that sell his work in the UK. I do not honestly think there is a case for deletion. I have not held back information on purpose, but have based myargument on wikipedia's policy... a source is presumed reliable unless proof against it is given (self-publication being proof). TonyBrit (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Characters in The Warriors

List of Characters in The Warriors (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Listcruft in its most annoying form. No sources, no verification, no context as to what "The Warriors" is (game? film? TV show? what?). Maybe a hoax. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and the sooner the better. I think they probably mean the 1970s film, but there's no justification for a separate article. Deb (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing new than what is already listed at The_Warriors (film)#Cast_and_characters Yngvarr 22:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as above. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete the character list in the main article is better. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no point in merging, since this is already in The Warriors (film) Mandsford (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete duplicative of material at The Warriors (film). JJL (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Unsourced; possibly a duplicate of The Warriors (film). — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 05:15, 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 No consensus, so Keep especially in light of additional RS that are available. John Vandenberg (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tiombe Lockhart

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

This article lacks sufficient WP:RS attribution to satisfy either the WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO notability guidelines ... the author, MrMPS (talk · contribs), removed a dated {{Prod}} tag without comment, so I have opened this AfD. —The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk · contribs) 22:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I posted the commendts in the discussion page (I updated the entry, added place of the artist's birth, some more bio and links). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMPS (talk • contribs) 22:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete-Well she sort of is notable, but the way it is written obviously fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC.--TrUCo⁹31¹ 22:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the individual is notable, but the problem is with the way the article is written, then the article should be re-written, not deleted. Bondegezou (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. It seems to me that the article fails WP:BAND, but there may be useful information that could be merged with Platinum Pied Pipers. Bondegezou (talk) 12:52, 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 delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not Another Savage Weekend

Not Another Savage Weekend (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, direct to video film. 0 Google hits for "Not Another Savage Weekend", IMDB has no info on film as well, possible hoax? Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete, likely hoax, not notable in any event. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete, total lack of coverage indicates a possible hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete probable hoax, and even if real a movie so utterly non-notable that even the IMDB doesn't have it doesn't need an article here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Super Strong Delete-sounds like if it was taken off another article and pasted here (even though it seems like a wiki article since it has the edit button pasted in), also this movie is not notable.--TrUCo⁹31¹ 22:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete notability + maybe a hoax? - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxalicious. Note that author had removed AfD notice (it was reverted). JuJube (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No relevance at all. No attempt to prove its nobability either, delete. Icerman (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Snowball delete per everyone.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - does not pass notability guidelines. --BelovedFreak 20:51, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Main Streets

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

Apologies for tagging a list which is marked as 'still in the middle of expansion'. But my feeling is that this whole concept is just not going to work. If complete (or even a quarter complete!), this list would have tens of thousands of links, almost all red. A far better way of finding an article on any given Main Street will be simply to insert this into the 'search' box. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete. I agree, there're way too many Main Streets out there for this list to ever be even 10% complete. I can think of at least five or six within my own county, and I live in the boonnies. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Wikipedia will never be 10% complete as a whole.Sebwite (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete-I agree with the nomination and especially with the Ten Pound Hammer--TrUCo⁹31¹ 22:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• semi-strong delete unnecessary navigation page for unneccesary articles about streets in places like "Reisterstown, Maryland" Looks like someone is working on a Main Street Project of some sort, and they're going the wrong way. Mandsford (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep: This article has the {{Underconstruction}} tag. Nominating such an article for deletion, in itself, is usually a violation of Wikipedia's policies. I never intended for this to be a complete list of every single Main Street around the world, only those that are notable, by that I mean those that already have Wikipedia articles about themselves or larger numbered roads that they are a part of. Such a list does indeed meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion, because it is a list linking to other articles.Sebwite (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I was reluctant to AfD this when I saw the template (hence my apology above). I went ahead because of the opinion that, however much work went into the list its concept was fatally flawed and no amount of editing work could redeem it. Of course, I may be wrong in my opinion and if I am the consensus will go against me! But it seemed more considerate to AfD it now, rather than wait for you to put lots of work in and then AfD it. By the way, I could not find any policy against AfD'ing an article with this template: you are quite free to continue editing the article while we discuss it, and should do so if you think it will help the case for retention. Best wishes - Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Response This list is a work in progress that is not intended to be completed in one day. The list is not of every single street called Main Street in the world, but only those that A.) have existing Wikipedia articles with that title themselves (e.g. Main Street (Hamilton, Ontario)), or B.) are part of a numbered route that has a Wikipedia article. The purpose of the page is to list these articles in an organized place where it would be easy to find them based on geography, just like so many lists of other things are listed. For example, one who wants to find Main Street in Hamilton, Ontario would first look for Canada, then Ontario, then Hamilton. This page does not need to be completed overnight either - Wikipedia is a work in progress. Regardless of what others say in this discussion, this list is perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia's guidelines. It is an organized list of other Wikipedia articles, not indiscriminate information. As for the idea of just entering "Main Street" and hitting Search, that is a much less efficient way of finding such articles. The articles come up in a disorganized, computer-generated order that most humans cannot decipher, and it is anyone's guess if the article one is looking for will be on page 1 or page 1347. I used this feature to find some of the articles I listed, but mostly, I am searching for various Main Streets using maps and studying numbered routes, and hoping that others will contribute too.Sebwite (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Almost every town in an English-speaking country has a Main Street. This is not needed as an aid to Wikipedia navigation. I hope this is not a prelude to a list of "High Streets," "Central Streets," "Elm Streets" etc. Edison (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It would be nice if we could all put the "under construction" tag on our articles and leave it there to make them deletion proof. You can always put this on your user page if you want to experiment. For those of you who were wondering why there was an article about Main Street in Reistertown, Maryland, there isn't. It's a link to Maryland Route 140, as is Main Street in Westminster, Maryland. The definition of notable given is part of a numbered route that has its own article. If you stop and think about it, you're talking about a bigger undertaking than I think you have time for -- looking at each town, seeing if it has a Main Street, then seeing whether there's an article you can link it to. Just trying to do that with Maryland alone would take a long time, then there's Delaware, Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, etc. etc. etc. You're thinking too large. Mandsford (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - it's not a list of Main Streets, but a list of Main Street articles on Wikipedia, and thus a navigation aid. The Transhumanist (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - it's a disambiguation page, which we already have. The Transhumanist 22:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Main Street (disambiguation). --Nobunaga24 (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I had originally thought of using the Main Street (disambiguation) page to list these. I then found that this page lists other things that are titled "Main Street," such as books as songs, and if 100 streets are listed on this page together with just a dozen other things, the list of streets would be too overpowering for the other things. There are other street names for which use of the disambiguation page does work, such as Pennsylvania Avenue (disambiguation) (which I created as such), but with the name Main Street being so common, I felt that it was necessary not just to have a separate page listing them, but perhaps eventually to have a separate one for each continent or large country.Sebwite (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This is trivial information. These streets have nothing in common, except they contain the adjective(?) main. Corpx (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Page is redundant to Main Street (disambiguation).-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Main Street (disambiguation). I do not believe that pages under construction should be immune to deletion. If there is no real chance that an article will remain on Wikipedia after completion, then the article should be deleted before editors waste any time on it. However, in this situation, the article in question contains information that is not in the disambiguation article, so a merge is appropriate. The list article's creator should be encouraged to improve the disambiguation article.--FreeKresge (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete possibly move anything into Main Street (disambiguation) that is not already there.MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 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, no assertion of notability per WP:BIO Black Kite 02:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Ankrum

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

Fails WP:BIO. Claim to notability is as failed candidate for U.S. Congress, military service. Bellhalla (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - there is no indication that his military service provides notability, nor does the list of jobs or assignments. As a politician, he has not won any election. -- Whpq (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] George Antuna

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

Fails WP:BIO. Claim to notability is as a failed candidate for state legislature. Bellhalla (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Per above. will381796 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - unelected politician with no indication of any other attributes that may be notable -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bandar Albuliwi

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

Explicitly fails notability criteria for creative professionals. --72.229.138.61 (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This AfD was placed by an IP but completed by me; see this diff. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Agree Rogwan (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - the only coverage with any substance is in an article in a local alternative newspaper. Insufficient reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Music Hall of Fame and Museum

Christian Music Hall of Fame and Museum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article for a new organization that does not yet meet the notability requirements of WP:ORG. There has yet to be any non-trivial coverage of this subject by reliable, third-party published sources. Google News Archives search produces 0 hits. A search on Yahoo! News also produces 0 hits. Contested PROD, so comes here for deletion. Thank you. — Satori Son 21:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sting au Buzz Me... 22:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete While I'm a Christian, I'm not really a fan of so-called Christian music. Either way, though, there is already a fairly well established (37 years) Gospel Music Hall of Fame operated by an even more well established (44 years) Gospel Music Association. This aspires to be a tourist destination in suburban Dallas, and plans to "induct" 8 artists a year after it opens. It's already "enshrined" 124 persons who are probably unaware of the honor, perhaps to do 16 years worth of catching up before the groundbreaking. Its sponsors are, not surprisingly, in Frisco, Texas. Its tax-exempt and looking for donations. At the moment, however, it's a Hall of Fame without a hall and without fame. Mandsford (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can establish notability through coverage from independent, reliable sources Corpx (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - hasn't really established itself yet. No coverage in any reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 06:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Bolanos

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

Fails WP:BIO. Claim to notability is as failed political candidate, and the fact that he is one of three brothers that all served in combat in Vietnam War. Bellhalla (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless somebody finds coverage from media, because his actions by themselves do not establish notability Corpx (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - unelected politician. The Vietnam thing is an interesting curiosity but not notable -- Whpq (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to Kimbles. I am merging it into the most local article I can find, other editors can change it if they disagree. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ladymede school

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

PROD removed without explanation. Elementary school, nothing special about it. No school district to redirect to (per WP:SCHOOL). Delete. or Redirect to school district if it can be found. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete-fails WP:SCHOOL and WP:N--TrUCo⁹31¹ 22:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sting au Buzz Me... 22:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Buckinghamshire#Education if WP:RS not found (otherwise keep). The redirect will preserve content in history if article is recreated with better sources etc. Sting au Buzz Me... 22:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect per updated, proposed guideline WP:SCL --Daddy.twins (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. I give high marks to both User:channelvmedia and User:Travellingcari for their extensive interest in this article, their remaining civil throughout, and detailed reasonings. However, the subject of the article, I agree, does not meet our notability criteria. If anyone in this debate would like a copy of the deleted material to continue work in userspace, ask me on my talkpage. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Pulizzi

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

I debated on this one for a while as I'd tagged and watched it even before the creator reverted my tagging and added fluff. There's some substantial COI issues, but also nothing to assert notability to enable fixing of the COI issues. Fails WP:BIO quite substantially. Travellingcari (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How is this a conflict of interest?? I added proper references, not "fluff." Instead of deleting, give me advice. And how is my username "dubious"? Channelvmedia (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Channelvmedia

Comment I still question whether the references, thank you for adding those by the way, meet the guidelines of Wikipedia:SOURCES#Sources. Especially the last, which is a blog. The first, seems to be little more than a press release. If he were more notable, I believe he'd garner more press in Reliable Sources. The reason I brought it here for discussion was exactly that, a desire to discuss whether it meets the standards. That's what this is. Travellingcari (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm trying to track down better sources for him. He's been written up in more reliable sources, just having trouuble finding them... Thanks, channelv

Comment Okay, making progress. If you have any feedback/advice for me, please let me know! Thanks again, channelv —Preceding comment was added at 05:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I added several citations and they've all been deleted. May I ask why? I would love to resolve every issue with this page today. If you could offer your suggestions, I would greatly appreciate it. Another option would be for me to work on this in the Sandbox (which I wish I would have done initially). Is it possible for me to take this down at this point and work on it there until it's ready to be posted? Thanks, Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 14:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Commentt Also, if you could help me eliminate anything that comes off as a conflict of interest, I would be happy to comply. Joe Pulizzi is truly an expert on the growing field of content marketing and I would love to add him to Wikipedia, as he's a great reference on the subject. However, I don't want it to be biased and will certainly do it in the best interest of the community. Please help. Thanks again for all, Channelv. —Preceding comment was added at 14:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Response to Channel: I believe that autobot edits such as this one are due to the addition of links that may be on the spam list. I'm trying to find confirmation of that, has to do with reliable sources and such, i.e. blogspot, which are sometimes added to the article as spam. I think your intentions are good, there's nothing that prevents an article from being re-created once improved. At this point there's no consensus to delete, it's a discussion. I hope others will join in. Be back in a bit when I can find the info on the bot's actions. Travellingcari (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

2nd Response: ok found the info quicker than I thought. The link shows frequent reversions, and the bot also left a comment on your talk page. It has a lot to do with reliable sources, especially the information on self published sources, as is the issue with lulu (his book) and the blogs. Also when looking at whether Pulizzi meets the notability standards, it's good to look at Wikipedia:BIO#Basic_criteria, which is not policy but rather a consensus established. I'm not sure whether he meets that criteria, but I wouldn't say that he definitely doesn't. Hope that has helped some. Feel free to ask if you'd like more information. Travellingcari (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Thank you. I didn't realize the book was self-published, so I'll get that out of there (unless I can keep it in there without adding an external link?). I'm going to play with the rest of it now. Is there anyway to get this offline until it's perfect? Joe Pulizzi doesn't need to endure the embarrassment because of my mistakes. Also, do you think that adding his upcoming speaking engagements looks too much like a sales pitch? I haven't heard anything either way on those, but thought they might inhibit me. Please let me know your thoughts. His bio is part of a larger network of entries I'd like to add about the custom content industry. I wish I had known all of the rules before posting but this is definitely a good crash course for my entries going forward. Next time I'll be more thorough in reading the guidelines. Best, Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 16:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Response No worries. I've asked another editor who recently stepped into the article to come lend a hand here to see if he can sort some of the reversions that are making your head spin (and mine too every time it shows on my watchlist). I don't know whether that would seem like a sales pitch or not. My question lies more on whether someone would come to wikipedia to look up information on Pulizzi, i.e. whether the content is encyclopedic. As I learnt from someone else, you can use {{db-author}} to have it speedily deleted, but I don't know policy when it comes to something that's already here. Travellingcari (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I definitely believe that people will come to look up Joe. He just started a business bookmarking site that is completely revolutionary in our industry, and people will certainly want to find out more about him. The problem with his past experience and positions is that his companies and publications were the focus of many articles, but he wasn't always necessarily directly credited. That's where there's a disconnect. Obviously you can't take my word for it--that's what the references are for--but he is a dynamic figure/leader in the content marketing industry, which itself is just now becoming a buzzword (hence my wanting to get it on the radar before anyone else). I just want to perfect this one before I attempt to start another article. Back to the ol' drawing board! Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 17:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment 2 I guess i'm a bit confused by the fact that people like David Meerman Scott offer no citations for any of their claims, and have similar articles to what I'm trying to add. This seems like a disconnect. They are in the same industry, have similar backgrounds, but one is acceptable and one is not. Do you know why that is? Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 17:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Response I can't really comment to your other issue since I'm not too familiar with the industry but for this comment I can point you to Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF which basically answers your question, although it's not policy per se. I had never seen that article but on looking I see that you're right, it's not sourced. However [it's possible that it can be] due to the coverage he received, including three apparently notable books per Google Books. There's no question that article can be improved. I tried to improve this one before nominating as I believe that's what should be done, but I couldn't find any reliable coverage. Travellingcari (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I just read "other stuff" and it makes sense--I wasn't saying one should exist b/c another does, just wondering why mine was getting pounded. But yes, the article certainly explained that, so thank you. [I'm learning so much, actually]. My next and close to final question, then, is: What exactly do I need to provide at this point to get this article up today? If I can delete some claims until I can offer citations, I would be open to that. I could even get rid of half of the stuff on there if needed, but I want to make this article as valid as possible and remove it from discussion. Is that going to be possible? Thank you again and again, Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 17:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Response I'm sorry if you think I'm pounding this article, I'm not or at least that wasn't my intention so I'm sorry if it came across that way. What you can do is take out anything you can't source and leave it as a stub. There are lists of stub types including Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types#People_by_occupation and and perhaps the stub would fit in one of those? It might also help to remember that there is no deadline and that an article can continually evolve. Travellingcari (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment As I get more involved in this process, I understand why you're monitoring this so closely--so, no worries (and even more appropriately--thank you). I just went in and marked those things that need better citations as stubs, as well as marking the entire article a stub. That said; is this article getting closer to complying? I will updated it frequently as more reliable sources become available. Please let me know your thoughts or if you have any further suggestions to improve the article. Thank you, Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 18:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment You've done a very good job cleaning up this page. I just did a minor clean up for formatting issues and the fact that I didn't explain the stub tags very well, but I agree with your changes in that respect. One issue that I'm still having with this article, I see you list "How to Profit from a Custom Publishing Strategy" as something he's done and you may be right but there appears to be no way to verify this. Have his engagements received mention elsewhere that I wouldn't know to search? Travellingcari (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Response Why thank you kindly. I couldn't find anything on that engagement either, so I've requested it from the association and taken the reference down for now. Did you need a reference for each engagement? Is there anything else I can do at this point? Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 21:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Response2 I found the reference and added it! Are we ready to go?? Thanks, Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 13:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

• Delete -- All the furniture-shifting in the world isn' going to make this guy encyclopedic -- as in, having actual real-world impact and notability. The obvious conflict of interest of its creator [19] doesn't help matters. --Calton | Talk 13:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment that's what I'm struggling with as well, Calton. I know ChannelV is doing his/her best to track down information on what Pulizzi's done and I do think s/he has improved the article a lot but I don't see how it's encyclopedic outside the industry. I'm not sure what the rush to have this discussion settled is, the AfD was opened only Weds. Travellingcari (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Given that ChannelV appears, in fact, to be the subject hisownself, tracking down information on what he's done ought not to be too difficult. What's at issue is whether that information is worth anything or shows whether he rates an article in the first place. And what rush are you talking about? --Calton | Talk 16:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Don't know how to link directly to a comment here but his comment above your "discussion" subheading reads " Response2 I found the reference and added it! Are we ready to go?? Thanks, Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 13:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)" I interpret "Are we ready to go?" as a rush to have this AfD done with, which is what I don't follow. There is also What exactly do I need to provide at this point to get this article up today? further above. I didn't realise ChannelV was JP, I just assumed it was a press entity working to get a puff piece up, which was the original issue. I know reliability and notability are an issue, that's why I brought the article here initially after some tagging. I'm not convinced there's going to be consensus to do anything ince the Afd was ChannelV and I before you wandered in. I'm hoping some other chime in on one side or the other as it would be helpful. Travellingcari (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - the added material for reference don't really add up to significant coverage in reliable sources. Brochures for conferences confirm he exists but don't establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Response I am not Joe. I am a woman who works with an organization that is deeply engrained in the content marketing industry, and to those in our industry, his profile, along with others, are important. Whether or not this informaiton is relevant to you, in particular, has no bearing on whether it should be considered encyclopedic. I've done my best to comply, and have added reliable sources. If you'd like to take it down, please do so, but to sit around and speculate (and make assumptions based perhaps on past experiences) seems immature and catty. Thanks for all of your help, but please, make a decision. My rush on this matter is to save face of someone who doesn't deserve the biased scrutiny. Best, Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 14:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Response Wikipedia:COI is seriously beginning to apply, although I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Notability is a huge issue here and his existence may not push him past the barrier. That's where I've stood from the first moment and where I'll continue to stand on the issue. Travellingcari (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Sounds like you guys have your minds made up. I don't know that seeing Joe as an expert in his field is a conflict of interest, but okay... Nevertheless, I found quite a few reliable references and have added them. Thanks, channelv —Preceding comment was added at 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm done with this discussion, the COI is blatantly evident. The notability is not. If it gets relisted, we'll see what happens but this entire "novel" is essentially a back and forth. Creator did her best to create a good article from a marginally notable, at best, subject. Travellingcari (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Response Anyone else? I've added several notable/reliable sources--more so than most articles on this site--as well as created stubs for those things that I couldn't yet find sources for. I don't see how my position in this posting poses a conflict of interest. It seems like a biased grudge that will not die. Either way, it seems silly to leave this page up with deletion tags plaguing it. Channelv —Preceding comment was added at 14:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment the page will be up until an admin decides to close the discussion. It's conflict of interest because you're close to the subject and have a vested interest in getting him mentioned here. You can't be objective. There's still a lot of unencyclopedic content (personal life, a future self published book) and it's unclear whether he's notable. Someone objective will decide that -- we're all allowed to have an opinion and saying that those who disagree have a 'biased grudge' doesn't help. Travellingcari (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

2nd note you acknowledge in the article that he was involved with B2B magazine, therefore an article from that magazine, several of which were used as sources, is not going to meet RS because it's not independent of the source. You're trying and I get that -- but it may just be that there isn't enough independent and verifiable material on him. Travellingcari (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Response There are two magazines, B2B magazine and B2B Marketing Trends (the latter is the one with which he was involved). I removed those two references (good point). I removed his personal life section and mention of his book. I also removed his upcoming and past speaking engagements to avoide "looking like a resume." I've done what all that i can to comply, and I think it could be argued that anyone who posts something has an interest in getting it published--I won't agree that my interest is vested though, but I see why there might be speculation. ChannelV —Preceding comment was added at 19:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep John Vandenberg (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robot (film)

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

Explicitly fails notability guidelines for future films. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP: The film's been confirmed. Has millions of sources on the web. Highly expected. Most Expensive Indian film ever. Cast confimed. Crew confirmed. Shooting date announced. SHOULD STAY. There's no point having to create it all over again. If it had to be deleted, it had to be done nearly six months ago, when the film was only in discussion. Universal Hero (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Very well-referenced and well-written article about what looks like to be a very major film. If you mean it should be deleted because it hasn't started shooting yet, I think this is one case where the multiple sources and article quality trump a notability guideline. It's certainly worth giving the benefit of the doubt as what looks likely to be India's most expensive film ever until shooting commences. --Canley (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• There's no reason to excuse this particular project from the guideline -- many projects in development hell are comfortably merged elsewhere. WP:FUTFILM#Process suggests various places to merge if necessary. I listed a few examples in my recommendation below. The problem is that this is not a genuine film article -- it's merely an article that talks about a film that might be. It's been a possibility since 2001, and it could continue to be a possibility in 2011. It's not appropriate to have the illusion of a full-fledged film article when there's no guarantee that there will be a fleshing out with Plot, actual Production, and Reception sections. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep There is plenty here and it is well supported by source material. I can't believe it's even being considered for deletion. Georgiamonet (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect elsewhere. Per WP:NFF, a stand-alone article is not appropriate because the project may linger in development hell. There is zero guarantee that a film will take place -- many oft-covered projects fail to reach this stage, sometimes for over a decade. See examples: Superman film series#Failed projects, Batman film series#Failed projects, Logan's Run#Remake, Fahrenheit 451#Future film, etc. There should not be the illusion of an actual film article when there is no actual film guaranteed here. If production begins, the article can be easily revived. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. There's enough information on this one for a merge-redirect, though. The full article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 23:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I usually apply guidelines rather strictly, but common sense tells me to ignore all rules here. The article already looks more decent than the majority of WP film articles, and if something happens that prevents production, we can still delete it. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• The project was already called off as recently as October 2007, according to the article, so I'm not sure why rules should be ignored in this instance. Because there's activity now that will possibly set up for future activity doesn't mean that it's guaranteed to happen. It's an issue I've seen with articles about future films -- headlines being in front of editors seems to presently indicate a good chance, when in reality, it's as questionable as the headline that came the year before or five years before that. That's why WP:NFF exists, in my opinion -- to create an objective threshold rather than use editors' personal judgment calls (especially when not informed about how many projects really falter in the film industry). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. Just because there's a wealth of information about a project, it doesn't mean that the project will necessarily go ahead. Scripting issues, casting issues, all kinds of things can interfere. There are many better examples, but in my own personal experience I can point to State of Play, which had big stars attached and lots of verifiable coverage from September 2007 onwards (pre-merge version here) and which nearly collapsed due to the departure from the project of Brad Pitt. It was only Russell Crowe's late involvement which averted its abandonment, but it could quite easily have ended up as yet another failed production which was ultimately not notable enough to warrant its own article. Steve ^{T • C} 08:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Steve, there's a similiar situation here. Despite early hiccups with actors backing out, Rajnikanth will certainly play the lead role, after completing his current project. Universal Hero (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Steve was trying to suggest that anything can happen before production begins, and there may not necessarily be a last-minute rescue of this film like there was for State of Play. That film was merged to the source material's article until production began, at which point a full-fledged film article was established. It's not realistic to discuss the likelihood of a film taking place when we only have foretelling from the filmmakers. There are numerous instances of filmmakers involved with a project beyond State of Play, where production just cannot move forward. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Question As I usually don't edit film articles (and just responded in this AfD because the title of the film was "interesting"), can someone tell me if there has been a case where a movie never entered production (death of main actor, who knows...) but was still so notable that wikipedia has kept its article and kind of always will? I'd consider revising my !vote to merge, but not anything beneath that. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm looking at unfinished films and cancelled films, some of which has mentioned reasons for not being complete. It's difficult to determine because usually such projects in development will be merged elsewhere due to very little information available. Feel free to browse the entries, but I don't see many of them in necessarily good shape. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP: The film was in discussion. After Rajnikanth signed in, every financial matter has been taken care of. The film is in preproduction stage now. Director is planning the shooting dates and talking about scenes requires CG. You have waited for six years, why not a couple of months? -- Hari Prakash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.112.68 (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem is, anything could still happen to disrupt production. We're speaking from experience here, having seen numerous projects either postponed or cancelled altogether, even ones which seemed like a lock. There's absolutely no prejudice against this article's re-expansion or recreation once filming is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 08:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep:Notability guidelines clearly states to use the common sense. Only those who live in south india and tamil speaking areas will understand the imporatance of this article.It can be removed if it is officialy dumped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayouren (talk • contribs) 12:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to recreation when the film enters production. I have to disagree with those who feel that this project merits a deviation from the normal rules. The future file notability policy very clearly considers exactly this type of situation, and very clearly states that articles in an encyclopedia should not exist for a film at this stage of production. I would concur with a merge, but there really is no appropriate target to redirect or merge this content. Because I agree that the work that has gone into this article should not be lost, I have userfied the page here. I do not edit in this area, but someone who does is welcome to copy this to their own sandbox. It then could be brought back easily when the film actually enters production. I'm just unconvinced that a film that has been bouncing around for 7 years will suddenly be produced without any further production delays. Xymmax (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result wasClose as no consensus towards deletion which defaults to keep. I strongly agree that this is a content dispute that needs to be moved to Talk:Psychohistory and related forums and WikiProjects. Keeper | 76 19:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Psychohistory

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

Delete article that even after all this time has failed to psychohistory is a legitimate field. Yes, there are plenty of references for the historical things discussed within the topic but not for the topic itself. After all this time, somebody should have been able to show that the term itself wasn't made up by the article's original author. When I find the word through google, the sources either refer to Asimov's fictional term which is already covered elsewhere in Wikipedia, or they vary so vastly in their uses of the term that this cannot possibly be a specific field. Where it might seem to be legitimate, a mention of it might be appropriately incorporated into the article on the better known Asimov term. Otherwise, the content of this article is not actually about any field of psychohistory itself. Wryspy (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be a legitimate field to have a Wikipedia article!P4k (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Asimov's psychohistory (fictional) is rarely, if ever, mentioned in academic circles. On the other hand, psychohistory is a controversial, but established field of inquiry on child abuse in different cultures. Even non-psychohistorian academics recognize, and acknowledge in scholarly literature, the existence of this field. —Cesar Tort 23:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Belete. This topic is simply not notable enough to have an article. It is by definition a fringe view that dismisses an entire academic discipline. There are a few references to it in a handful of journals but in those articles it is using 'psychohistory' in a completely different way and to communicate a completely different concept. It could perhaps be re-written at a later date but for now it should probably go.--Woland (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment "There are a few references to it in a handful of journals but in those articles it is using 'psychohistory' in a completely different way and to communicate a completely different concept." You are wrong there, Woland. When an academic source talks about psychohistory it invariably refers to subjects related to what is being discussed in the article. There is no wide use of the term aside the deMause school (and a bit of Freud) and Asimov's sci-fi novels (the latter obviously have an independent article). —Cesar Tort 23:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Has its own LC subject heading [20] with over 100 books categorized at the Library of congress, and in addition multiple bibliographies, periodicals, and congresses. Clearly notable. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep As Silly rabbit says, the Library of Congress lists many reliable sources about htis subject, including a journal, LC Control No.: 76646742, Type of Material: Serial (Periodical, Newspaper, etc.), Main Title: The Psychohistory review. Edison (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Several academic journals devoted entirely on the subject. dozens of faculty at major universities listed at [21] who Branconsider this their specialty. Obviously, someone here doesnt think much of this field of research, but thats not reason to delete the article on it--or perhaps it's just based on a knowledge of Asimov's fiction & assuming anything else is a misuse of the term. DGG (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has problems, but it's a real topic. Heck, the Journal of Psychohistory even has its own Wikipedia article. Doczilla (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with DGG, Edison, and Silly Rabbit. But the article that Wikipedia has is not that article on that topic and as long as it is here, it is an embarassment to the encyclopedia. I find it hard to vote "delete" because we ought to have an article pon psychohistory - the psychohistory DGG, Edison, and Silly Rabbit refer to. But I find it hard to vote "keep" because this AfD is not referring to that (as yet hypothetical) article but a changeling that is unencyclopedically pushing a fringe POV. If DGG, Edison, and Silly Rabbit want to blnk the page and start writing the article they are imagining, I would definitely be for keeping it. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Precisely what I was trying to say but said much gooder.--Woland (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "the article that Wikipedia has is not that article on that topic". What are you talking about? As stated above, what is widely regarded as psychohistory is (1) Asimov's Foundation series or (2) the field related to deMause's school. It's true that once in a while it appears a mention of some of Freud's work as "psychohistory". But it's the exception rather than the rule. —Cesar Tort 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, if you go to the Journal of Psychohistory, you will see that it is not built aournd DeMause's school. DeMause is mentioned in about 6% of the google hits for psychohistory. Only 6%. As a matter of fact, if you feel it's that closely connected to DeMause, this should be turned into a redirect to DeMause's article with appropriate content merge.Wryspy (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Slrubenstein's assessment that the article appears to document somewhat of a fringe view. Not being a social scientist myself, I would even go so far as to say that psychohistory per se appears to be a pseudoscientific endeavor — and that I am certainly not qualified to address which topics are "mainstream" within its particular sphere of applicability. However, this certainly does not disqualify the article for inclusion in Wikipedia. (See, for instance, Flat earth theory.) Since this appears to be a content dispute, I suggest that the issue be raised not at AfD, where the threshhold has clearly been passed (notability), but at the article talk page, RfC, or other more appropriate forum. Silly rabbit (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• What are you talking about, Wryspy?? DeMause has been the editor of that journal for more than thirty years! (I subscribe that journal BTW). —Cesar Tort 18:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We very obviously seem to be in a content dispute. I suggest a rapid close.DGG (talk) 18:18, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Jameson

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

Fails WP:BIO. Claim to notability is as a three-time failed candidate for a minor (in Texas, at least) party. Bellhalla (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of "significant coverage" from independent sources Corpx (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - unlelected politician -- Whpq (talk) 14:03, 4 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, if you wish, you may create a redirect over this deleted article. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Woodward (Niagara Falls)

Roger Woodward (Niagara Falls) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Guy who is notable only for having survived going over Niagara Falls. The story is already in the Niagara Falls article. This is a clear-cut example of WP:BIO1E. howcheng {chat} 20:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I hate to say, but as per nom. Just to reaffirm what is said: Niagara Falls already contains an account of the event. The only thing I would suggest is that the two external links from Roger Woodward (Niagara Falls) be incorporated into the account at Niagara_Falls#Over_The_Falls. Yngvarr 21:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I dont think this guy has "historic notability". Maybe just a redirect to the relevant section? Corpx (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Redir to Niagara Falls. WP:BIO1E applies. — BillC ^talk 01:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep and cleanup article, so tagged. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Kimball

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

The pastor of a local church doesn't meet the notability threshold; sorry. While this person is presented as "part of" a movement, no substantiation is given for the existence of said movement, nor is it asserted that the subject is a significant leader. Has been prodded for substantiation for several months. Apparently created by single-purpose account. P L E A T H E R _talk 20:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he is quite well known as being one of a handful of "founders" of the movement, the (Emerging Church), and he has authored a number of important books in that space. There is currently a great bit of debate about the movement (which leads a number of vandals to fight over pages like this one), in which Kimball stands as the key conservative figure, along with Mark Driscoll. I do not agree with deletion of this article.--Lyonscc (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Although the article isn't great, Dan Kimball is one of the main figures in the (Emerging Church) and is the most discussed representatives of that strain. He is the author of several books that are widely read in Emerging circles, including "the Emerging Church," which was one of the books that was most influential in popularizing the term. Additionally, there are now several "Vintage Faith" churches that are inspired by his writings and methodology. While the article needs lots and lots of work, the guy is certainly notable. I think that this article should stay. WinstonKap (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)WinstonKap

I just wanted to add that I edited the article to better show Dan Kimball's relationship to the Emerging Church Movement. WinstonKap (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)WinstonKap

Wikipedia has many entries about authors and Kimball has written several books and is known in the emerging church and evangelical church movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by INBY (talk • contribs) 05:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I wish we could accept vague assurances that this person is "quite well known", but the standards of WP:BIO are higher than that. Even as rewritten, the article only asserts that he is "known to be part of" and "one of the earliest members" of said movement--once again, vagueness. As established in WP:BIO, here are the accepted criteria for notability:
  • The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.
  • The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

Please understand that I haven't the slightest axe to grind here: I have no church or ideological ties. I came across this page at random, and was struck by the lack of substantiation. Nothing has emerged yet to change that. -- P L E A T H E R _talk 21:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 20:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Kind of surprised weak keep - Kimball does appear to have a number of publications that have received some coverage, and I've found him being quoted about the Emerging church movement in sources such as the New York Times, San Diego Union Tribune (which refers to him as one of the movement's pioneers) and various other media outlets. He seems to slip just above the wire, considering that. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

KEEP - I came to the article searching for information about him. I have been reading articles from traditional Christians, who consider his "emergent church" ideas to be very controversial. He is the author of the book entitled "The emergent church" Many others beside those who agree with his thinking are interested in finding out who he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattDiClemente (talk • contribs) 01:51, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Research study on transplants

Research study on transplants (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Essay on organ transplants. Comes down to a content fork. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. What a mess. I tagged it for wikify and verify. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete Content fork/essay, reads almost like a copy & paste job, composed almost entirely of original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Student essay. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, unstated UK focus -- I fear this isn't salvageable. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete'. Originally researched essay.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Espresso Addict RogueNinja_talk 08:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - So far it is OR plus POV with statements like '"Scientists are “playing God” . . .' Mattisse 22:16, 4 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. Black Kite 02:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Rice Harris

James Rice Harris (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. Claim to notability is as failed election candidate, with unsourced statement regarding record number of votes for an independent candidate. Bellhalla (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete As per nom. Even if he were a major party candidate, coming in second place for a state assembly falls short of notability. Jacksinterweb (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - unelected politician - Whpq (talk) 14:05, 4 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 Merged and Redirected to the list of minor characters. Black Kite 02:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kieron Hobbs

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

Non-notable character by WP:N and/or WP:FICT. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

He's going to become a pretty important character as the months go along, so I would vote to keep the article. If people would rather create a minor characters page for Hollyoaks, which I suggested on their talk page, that might be a place for some of the Hollyoaks faces who aren't major characters, but no one else has responded to the idea yet.--JamesB3 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Keep per above--KingMorpheus (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:CRYSTAL. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's based more on actual spoilers for the months ahead than on speculation, and that part of the story has already begun. If people want to create a minor or recurring characters page for Hollyoaks and debate whether his page should be moved there, I could see the point of the discussion and perhaps his info could be moved to that type of page, but I think the character is important enough to warrant some entry. --JamesB3 (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Keep per JamesB3's comments ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 10:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Merge to an article on the minor characters, as suggested. if this ever becomes important enough, then write a separate article. DGG (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There is now a list of minor characters from Hollyoaks which this article can be merged into. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 20:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Dodd

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. Claim of notability is as failed candidate for office, and descendant of founder of Atlanta, Texas. Sounds like fine citizen, but not notable. Bellhalla (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete with nom. No real notability outside the area either Corpx (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - unelected politician -- Whpq (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iris Peterson

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

Fails WP:BIO, reliable source and notability guidelines. 2 of the sources are blogs/forums and can't be used. The AFA link is a press release type bio on the subject, and other independent non-PR sources can't be found to afford this person notability Russavia (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. She is notable for being the oldest flight attendant as well as for her work in being one of the leaders in the movement to improve the status of the female flight attendant. The question seems to be whether there are reliable and verifiable sources as required by WP:BIO. I have added several other sources so that the information is supported not just by PR articles and blogs but also by articles from the flight attendants union, airlines in Asia, a London newspaper, and others. Truthanado (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep sources are sufficient. DGG (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Week Delete only because the sources are from her employer or union or copies of their press releases, really needs independent reliable sources of her achievements. MilborneOne (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Iris Peterson is a notable person, and is especially important in terms of gender and age discrimination. Sources are sufficient to justify notability. CaviaPorcellus (talk) 16:26, 4 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 (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Judith Moses

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

Article about a political candidate who has not yet been elected to office and thus fails WP:Bio#Politicians. Ros0709 (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• What's your reason for deletion? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Something went badly wrong in AfD creation! Fixed above. Ros0709 (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep (withdrawal of nomination). Please see my reasoning for withdrawing my nomination of Leah Lawrence. Although a different election the same reasoning seems to apply. Plus, I'm less convinced now than I was that this individual fails notability due to her other achievements. Ros0709 (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. This appears to be a case of Wikipedia being used to raise the profile of a political candidate. Similar action was rightly stamped on here. Ros0709 (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of her work as a government official, consultant and lobbyist. --Eastmain (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as she is a recognized Federal Liberal Candidate and is registered by Elections Canada to seek the position of Member of Parliament for her Federal Riding in the 40th Canadian General Election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.83.50 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'm going against the grain here, but I think this one is a delete. She will be the candidate, yes, but the election hasn't even been called yet. Google.com had many hits for many different people with the same name, but a search of Canadian sites found few hits, and most of those were just local coverage of her announcement that she is the future candidate. She has had some high-level beaurocratic positions, but not enough to meet WP:BIO. I actually hope that she wins the seat, but I really don't think that she's notable enough for an article here (yet?). --Dawn bard (talk) 16:18, 5 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 (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cowschwitz

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

An unencyclopedic take on a non-notable cattle ranch — AjaxSmack 20:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• While the actual company itself might (emphasis on "might") be notable, to say that "Cowschwitz" is a regularly used name for it is incorrect - 600 or so Google results, and no erally reliable sources to back it up. Delete - frankly, it might even be considered an attack page. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Looks better, but I'd like to see some more sourcing. Weak keep Tony Fox (arf!) 06:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. The actual Ranch doesn't have an article (or I can't find it?) If it does redirect to it. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Article was moved to a better name and the POV issues addressed. So the reasons provided for deleting no longer appear to be valid. A few more references and this should be clearly notable. I'll see if I can find some. I'm sure the smell is well reported. Changed from weak since they supply the In-N-Out chain with their hamburger meet. That is notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as fixed per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. changed my vote per Vegaswikian's efforts. Sting au Buzz Me... 07:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete One promotional bit, one bit from their website and some radio is hardly some indepth coverage from third party sources. It is some random cattle ranch. Yes it is big. That just makes it one big cattle ranch. Narson (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep At 100,000 cattle, it's practically a geographical feature. DGG (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep with the caveat that I would still like to see more sources, of course. I had concerns about the neutrality of the article, especially about the previous name of the article; I didn't doubt that that nickname was used, especially after reading copious blog entries , but I couldn't see a neutral article developing at that title. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 03:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Harris Ranch beef is marketed over a wide area. My supermarket (over 100 miles away) carries a wide selection of Harris Ranch products. I wish the article were of higher quality and more complete; I'd love to know more about the origins of my food. Stepheng3 (talk) 01:59, 4 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 per the comments by HSR and DGG. Paupiette appears to be a well-documented meal, and so verifiability shouldn't be a problem. A general clean-up is probably what is needed, but for now the article itself satisfies the notability guideline, which was a majority reason for the nomination. Rudget. 17:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paupiette

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

Fails WP:DICDEF, orphaned for over a year, tagged as lacking sources for several months. Rtphokie (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I think it seems to be a notable part of cuisine per this, [22], [23], [24]. Interestingly some of these dishes appear not to feature veal but instead fish (food) and turkey (bird), so the article might be incorrect in some information. Also, a possible merge to Roulade might be worth considering, although it'd be difficult considering that that is a disambiguation page currently.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment maybe the solution here is to merge all the meat based articles Rouladen, Braciola and Paupiette since they are all essentially the same technique, using different meats and from different countries into Roulade since this is the primary use of the word. The musical reference at the bottom of the current Roulade doesn't link to a specific article and is just a dictionary definition though it could be mentioned in the merged article as well.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe merging and redirecting all of these is the solution. I don't know enough about the subject to judge.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep significant dish in classic cuisine, documented in dozens of standard cookbooks. The ones from different countries are different, as are the sources. Cusisine is country-specific and merging is questionably OR, since they are in separate traditions.. DGG (talk) 02:26, 2 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 John Vandenberg (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fairy Tales (live)

Fairy Tales (live) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Subject is a bootleg, article is unreferenced and does not demonstrate notability. In fact, the page does not even specify which band is being bootleggaed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:33, 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: no reliable sources that give significant coverage and are independent of the subject. Sancho 01:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Physical Education Mixtape

Physical Education Mixtape (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article on a planned mixtape. Per WP:MUSIC mixtapes and future albums are not notable without substantial reference in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete WP:MUSIC specifies that mixtapes are not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep John Vandenberg (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quiet Company

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

The topic does not appear to meet any of the criteria at WP:BAND. —BurnDownBabylon 19:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

note: there is a redirect at Quiet company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BurnDownBabylon (talk • contribs) 19:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Quiet Company meets criteria 1, 5, 6,9, 10, & 11 listed in WP:MUSIC,

• 1. Multiple articles from around the country listed in main page citations and refrences
• 5. Released album on Northern Records home of former grammy winners and several others of the labels bands have wiki entries.
• 6. Taylor Muse is a former of Eisley & The Lonely Hearts listed on their official site and wiki page
• 9. Placed Runner up in the Austin City Limits music competition in 2007 (article cites it)
• 10. Performed on Velvet Blue compilation before signing with northern
• 11. Video currently playing nationally on MTV canada as well on XM Radio

Joe Wallace (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Joe Wallace

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Joe Wallace, but they don't meet criterion 5 because they haven't released two albums on a notable label.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:41, 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Julianity

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

Hoax or neologism. -- Mentifisto 19:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:V, sources don't seem to exist.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Don't Delete - See discussion page for counter arguments;

I personally speak as a Julianite. As a new religious movement, is it not self-evident that there will be few sources that aren't self-published? And that these are not valid sources? As to the suggestion that Julianity is not a true and original belief system, does not the existence of followers of it represent its existence, and the roots of major religious movements in previous ones is well documented so I don't think you can say, just due to similarities and origins in major religions, that Julianism is not its own movement. 79.64.113.52 (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the people closely involved in Julianity, I feel obliged to argue that this page is not deleted. It is only a small religious movement, and a lot of people criticize it, however, there are followers, and this is therefore a real faith. I feel that everything written on the page about the faith (obviously not its content) are facts. Therefore I think that it should not be deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.99.172 (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I am also a follower, and it most certainly is a real religious movement! I was not aware that there was also a facebook group, but I did not see that quoted as a source.? Don't delete! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.106.18 (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.35.234 (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - the source seems to be a facebook group; not good enough. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic Frost- Live in Weinheim, WG/ Bathory, Demos 1984-1985

Celtic Frost- Live in Weinheim, WG/ Bathory, Demos 1984-1985 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Subject is a bootleg, has no sources, and no demonstration of notability Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete A bootleg, and a completely NN one. Never asserts notability Doc Strange (talk) 19:42, 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 Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 07:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oriflame

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

Fails WP:CORP. Article contains no evidence of notability - there are no references to independent coverage; the one "outside" reference is a reprint of a company filing. Entire article content is advertising or trivial. Argyriou (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. Notability is asserted in the article to some extent - it is a relatively large multinational company, listed on a major stock exchange and with a presence in almost 60 countries. Following the link in the article to its listing on OMX reveals it has a market cap of over 18 billion SEK (almost €2 billion). Sure, it needs quite a cleanup, but it doesn't fail WP:CORP in my eyes. Gr1st (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I think the company passes WP:CORP and is therefore notable. matt91486 (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Question - what part of A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. has been satisfied by this article? Argyriou (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you nominated it, you should have done due diligence with a simple Google search, since you're supposed to do that before nominating. On the first page of Google hits, there's general third party news for them in regarding to outsourcing and product development. Those are secondary sources about the company. Obviously this isn't a particularly thorough search and I'm sure there are better sources than that, probably particularly in Swedish. matt91486 (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, there are 614 results for Oriflame in the Access World News database, a collection of third party news sources in the English language. Admittedly, many of these are stock reports, etc from business sources, but the company is well covered. But most importantly, here's a substantial feature article here. matt91486 (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Added a news report from forbes.com as a source in the article - there are plenty more where that came from. Surely WP:CORP is unequivocally satisfied now? Gr1st (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• keep - Notability clearly asserted in the article text and now referenced as well. It might have been less effort for the nominator to dig up that forbes reference himself instead of wasting other people's time with a prod and an afd. It certainly would have been in better style. --Latebird (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The company is notable as proved by sources. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudo-OS

Pseudo-OS (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Much of this is WP:SYNTH. Of the valid information, most of that is available in the more relevant articles, such as VMs, emulators, etc. Yngvarr 19:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep and cleanup Fake OS's are not exactly non-notable, as their use is becoming more widespread, but this article is in drastic need of some cleanup and sourcing. RedZion^X 20:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The problem I have with the article is both a misleading title, and the presentation. I use VM's every day at my job as a network engineer, and use emulators at home as a hobby, so I am a little familiar with them. I understand that my interpretation here, and my discussion, is subject to WP:OR, but the title of the article suggests that these are not "real" operating systems. VMs provide a layer of hardware emulation under which a real operating system runs; emulators generally do not provide a hardware emulation layer, but a real operating system still operates. But under all circumstances, they are very real operating systems. I submitted it for AFD, rather than address it, because I think the term hopeless is applicable (and that is not being snide). A move to address the name would not address that concern, as virtual machine and emulator are appropriate, and the individual articles discuss the inner workings, which are vastly different between the methods. Sorry for the long-winded reply. Yngvarr 20:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Nonstandard terminology/neologism, synthesis. Quale (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. The information is already properly covered in each of the relevant articles for VM's, JVM's and the like. -- Whpq (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, mainly because there is no rational given for deletion other than a simple "non notable" comment, which doesn't explain anything about why the subject is non notable. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Yuchtman

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

Not notable. Raliah (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Uncertain leaning towards keep Seems to me that having a 30-year career in radio in a major-city market is notable in itself, but I'm not totally sure about expandability. Perhaps some Hebrew-language sources exist that could tell us more. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep, this should have some references available. --Merovingian (T, C) 20:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - the dates the subject was active in make it difficult to find online sources to establish the subject's notability, so I hope someone in the Toronto area can find an old archive or something. The best reference I could find was from *shudder* World Net Daily, where Joseph Farah refers to Yuchtman as "the true pioneer of the first Jewish radio show in Toronto." WND not being a reliable source, that's kind of neither here nor there. I'm neutral at the moment, and hoping someone comes up with results. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Given that the subject was based in Toronto, any sources about him are likely to be in English, whether in the mainstream Toronto press or in Canadian Jewish newspapers. Unfortunately, they're also likely to be unavailable online. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep As it is not politically controversial ,I accept WordlNet Daily for notability in this instance. DGG (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dirt Fishermen

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

Nonnotable musicians in a nonnotable band. Google search find myspace and lots of underground types of things, but nothing that would make them worthy of an article here. Kingturtle (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per my denied PROD, "Doesn't seem to fulfil the criteria of WP:BAND" — alex.muller (talk • edits) 19:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I looked them up in the All Music Guide, and they have a bare-bones entry just confirming that they once existed and released an album, which isn't enough to meet WP:MUSIC.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:46, 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 Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 07:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Action for Blind People

Action for Blind People (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG and WP:Notability. No third party sources to assert notability. Delete Undeath (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I found some references and added them. I think that notability is established. --Eastmain (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. National charity, founded in 1857, meets Wikipedia:ORG#Non-commercial_organizations. The recent national press coverage as added by Eastmain shows the charity's importance. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to meet WP:ORG.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep They are large enough to operate four hotels. « D. Trebbien (talk) 19:32 2008 February 3 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Smash Physics

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

Contains a lot of what seems to be original research and does not hold a neutral point of view. Also much of the content cannot be verified with reliable independant third party sources as I've tried to find sources but all I found were links to game forums. AngelOfSadness talk 18:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete despite nomination. Please refrain from nominating articles for deletion because of problems such as original research and npov, it is not grounds for deletion. This article does fail WP:N, however. скоморохъ ^ѧ 18:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I actually meant to delete the first sentence before filing the Afd but got distracted. AngelOfSadness talk 18:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I appreciate your contributions скоморохъ ^ѧ 18:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - this is either a game guide or something made up one day. It's not an encyclopedia article, anyway. JohnCD (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - JohnCD wrote exactly what I was about to write. -Verdatum (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:OR, WP:NFT, WP:V - badly.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:48, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 12480 alphanumeric system

12480 alphanumeric system (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. No third party sources to assert notability. No citations to compare with the Klingon langauge. Searches yield nothing except for the article on Wiki and a few bands that have some of those numbers in their name. Undeath (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable conlang for a game which either doesn't exist, or for which no refs can be found. A more appropriate place would probably be something like http://conlang.wikia.com. I'd also point out WP:MADEUP. Yngvarr 19:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete minor aspect of a video game that was apparently never even released. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dchall1 (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, A7, by User:Pb30. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JRG Lifestyle Group

JRG Lifestyle Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Dosn't look notible, created by User:Jeremyrgeorge which is what the company's leader is. RT | Talk 18:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7 for not asserting notability in any way; "JRG Lifestyle Group" turns up bupkis on Google. Tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Fails WP:V since no WP:RS found. Only mentioned on MySpace. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atlantic Region Ministries

Atlantic Region Ministries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP and WP:NOTABILITY. The only link is a pdf explaining what the organization does. That does not assert notability.

• Delete Undeath (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• delete I'm unable to find any additional sources either. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aldair Mocelin

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

Regional league player Matthew_hk tc 18:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Article makes no assertion that this player meets WP:FOOTY notability criteria. King of the NorthEast 21:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - these could have maybe all been lumped together; they're all Brazilian regional players who don't seem to meet notability. Anyway, I checked out all of them on the Portuguese Wiki to see if there were any sources or stuff to find there for any of them, and there do not seem to be. matt91486 (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as appears to fail WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. --Angelo (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fernando Galhardo Borges

Fernando Galhardo Borges (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A non-notable player Matthew_hk tc 18:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Article makes no assertion that this player meets WP:FOOTY notability criteria. King of the NorthEast 21:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as appears to fail WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. --Angelo (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete seems to fail to meet WP:BIO and no text to assert anything otherwise. Peanut4 (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 19:55, 3 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 (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Art of Venezuela

Art of Venezuela (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not assert notability. No external/third party links, and no references or citations. There are other articles about the Venezuelan artists and museums. This fails WP:NOTABILITY so Delete. Undeath (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I know this is WP:WAX, but to have Art of the United Kingdom and not have this would be WP:BIAS against a lesser developed country. Really, really needs citations though. If none can be found, I don't object to a delete.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per HisSpaceResearch. Article needs work, and is at present underdeveloped, but it does have a list of artists which is a start. In a Venezuelan encyclopedia, I would expect the article on "Art" to contain information on Venzuelan art, and I would expect most encyclopedias to have information on "art" in the article on "Venezuela", so the topic is encyclopedic enough. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Although I must comment that it may not be necessary to have such an article for every country in the world. Art of Tuvalu, for example, would be unlikely to be useful.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Topic is eminently encyclopedic, and does not fail notability. AFD is not for article cleanup. Quale (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Very reluctant delete without prejudice against re-creation if reliable sources can be found. I agree that having an article on art in the UK and not on art in Venezuela would demonstrate bias. However, if the reason is a lack of reliable sources on art in Venezuela, then it would demonstrate bias by art critics, art historians, etc., not by Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot contain information beyond what is available in reliable sources, so it is forced to reflect those sources' biases. Reliable sources on art in Venezuela probably exist and I hope that someone more knowledgeable than I am finds them. However, I will not assume that they exist.

Furthermore, I reluctantly have to conclude that the current article is unsalvageable. It reads like promotional copy for tourists rather than like an encyclopedia article. The list of artists at the bottom of the article is unnecessary as List of Venezuelan artists already exists. If reliable sources are found, it would be better to rewrite the article from scratch rather than to attempt to work with the existing text. --FreeKresge (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Other nations have similar articles. The topic is notable. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 06:14, 5 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walking Corpse

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

Non-notable band that fails WP:MUSIC and also lacks reliable third party sources. Also the editor who created the article may have a conflict of interest. AngelOfSadness talk 18:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete There is one instance of notability, with Gwar's singer appearing, but that is not cited nor can it be proven anywhere else other than their own page. Without a decent third party link, this does not meet the requirements for WP:MUSIC.Undeath (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. There is also a conflict of interest as the author is the singer of the band. The only source appears to be the band's Myspace. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:12, 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 Non Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 07:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ice Records

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

Article about a company that doesn't assert significance Gdean2323 (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC) cat=O

• Keep. The company claims to have the "largest catalog of Caribbean music in the world", and it has several notable musicians on its roster. See the references. --Eastmain (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep Labels with multiple notable artists are generally considered notable. This page makes an assertation to notability, although I can't seem to find a good reference to back up that claim. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep (as article creator), label with roster of some of the most prominent soca and calypso musicians. Note that nominator User:Gdean2323 posted this AFD less than a half-hour after I speedily deleted his only contribution to that point, Electrawatch. See WP:POINT. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as nom was trying to make WP:POINT in revenge for his page being deleted. See Talk:Ice Records. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Per WP:POINT. Clearly notable. Lugnuts (talk) 12:25, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liam Bridcutt

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

Non-notable as he hasn't played in a professional league Eddie6705 (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO - not played a professional game. Peanut4 (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as hasn't played in a fully pro league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Until this player plays for the first team in a fully professional leage the article fails the WP:FOOTY notability criteria. King of the NorthEast 21:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO --Angelo (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete reserve players. Punkmorten (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jederson Cristiano Camargo Lopes

Jederson Cristiano Camargo Lopes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not-notable player that just played in Serie C and now regional league Matthew_hk tc 17:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Article makes no assertion that this player meets WP:FOOTY notability criteria. King of the NorthEast 21:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to fail WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO --Angelo (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diego Moura Cabral

Diego Moura Cabral (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another young regional league player Matthew_hk tc 17:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Article makes no assertion that this player meets WP:FOOTY notability criteria. King of the NorthEast 21:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to fail WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO --Angelo (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marcelo Rangel Rosa

Marcelo Rangel Rosa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Another young footballer for regional team Matthew_hk tc 17:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete article makes no assertion that this player meets WP:Footy notability criteria. King of the NorthEast 21:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to fail WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO --Angelo (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marcos Danilo Padilha

Marcos Danilo Padilha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-Notable: Brazilian state league players, seems not yet a professional/notable enough Matthew_hk tc 17:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As no data has documented, although Cianorte seems played in Serie C, but not yer prove him played in Serie C. Matthew_hk tc 17:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, no assertion of notability according to WP:Footy criteria. King of the NorthEast 20:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to fail WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO --Angelo (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Punkmorten (talk) 19:53, 3 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 (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2K Sports Mixtape (Hosted By Clinton Sparks)

2K Sports Mixtape (Hosted By Clinton Sparks) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Per WP:MUSIC, mixtapes are not notable unless there is substantial coverage in reliable sources. Prod was declined stating there were refs available via a google search. No reliable sources were found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep Apparently nominator did not search hard enough, because I found quite a few on the first page of google. First of all, it is created by 2K Sports, a major computer gaming company, and noted on their website. Hiphopreaction.com discusses it, as does Gamezone, BDGamers.net, Mixtape Pass (cached), Generation Hip Hop,MTV.com (discussing artists on the tape's tour,AndOne Australia, who is helping host the tour, etc. There's plenty of reliable sources on this. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Also notice that what is said at WP:MUSIC is not intended for big name "mixtapes" such as this one, which is only a "mixtape" in name, and is more in common with a full ensemble album. Per WP:MUSIC: " In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." It should be noted that nearly all artists on this tape have significant articles on them on wikipedia. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Tend to agree with Swatjester. Well documented, reviewed, and sourced by all kinds of reliable third party sources. Its a "mixtape" in name, but professionally produced by Dan the Automator of all people. However, I will also say that this article is in desperate need of a Rename. The whole "hosted by" bit needs to be lopped off. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 17:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: Notable CD, and I have to disagree about taking off the "Hosted By" part, because that's part of the title (which is why I put it there). Jay (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• The only reason why I said that is usually a parenthetical in the title is used to disambiguate the article or to identify what type of thing the article is, such as "(album)". In addition, the only place where "hosted by Clinton Sparks" is pritned in relation to this compilation is at the top of the official webpage and it's not in parens. Even on that page, all other references to it is just "2K Sports Mixtape". All the other source pages don't have the "hosted by" part either. This leads me to believe that the title is "2K Sports Mixtape" and the "hosted by" bit at the top of the webpage was more descriptive than actually part of the title. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 23:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Dan "the Automator" Nakamura seems notable, so this album is notable by association. « D. Trebbien (talk) 19:04 2008 February 3 (UTC)
• Keep - inherent notability from Dan the Automator in my view. -Halo (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aleix Serra

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

Fails WP:BIO#Athletes because he has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Until he actually plays, he's not yet notable. --Dweller (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete until he meets WP:FOOTBALL's WP:BIO i.e. he plays in at least one professional match. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO Peanut4 (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, yet to make professional debut, when/if he does then the article can be recreated. King of the NorthEast 20:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, is the league notable anyway? Punkmorten (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Dog IV Brass Band

Bad Dog IV Brass Band (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete as total failure of WP:MUSIC; no reliable sources could be found in a search. Has some borderline assertations which put it just this side of an A7, but not by much. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete completely and utterly fails WP:MUSIC, and almost certainly a vanity/spam article. I would have speedied it if I'd found it first. :) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Non-notable band, and a self-praise article on top of that. RedZion^X 20:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Wouldn't go so far as to speedy it, but certainly has no place in WP. SingCal 03:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete per all above. The article was apparently created by one of the band members, which is a conflict of interest. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 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; the problems with this article (unverifiability, lack of reliable, secondary sources and original research) would be enough to be fatal— coupled with the lack of attempts at salvaging it deletion is unavoidable. Norrath has been mentioned as a merge target, but there is no prose to merge and the article is little but a table of bullet points. — Coren ^(talk) 04:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EverQuest timeline

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

Despite the previous nomination resulted in "No consensus" over two months ago, nearly no effort has been done to fix the issues upon this article.

The article still appears to be plot summaries of unnotable cruft with poor sources.

As a timeline, this article contains in-universe storylines, something which Wikipedia is not.

Such material is still unnotable to the real world and non-EverQuest players.

Containing cruft has a tendency to attracting original research, something not welcome in Wikipedia.

Finally, the sources on this article were very poorly done, with some of them not working, and still were not working even since the previous AfD over two months ago. Such sources do not even seem acceptable in the first place, ranging from game manuals to forums.

Despite the previous AfD, there has only been three edits total on this article, none of which attempted to improve the issues other than adding an in-universe template. It is apparently obvious that no effort will be done to fix the problems this article has. IAmSasori (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per nom's excellent analysis. Numerous policies are still broken, despite claims of the potential for improvement in previous AFDs. There has been plenty of time yet absolutely nothing has been done to address any of the concerns raised. There is no reason to allow this to remain on Wikipedia any longer. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like it's had its chance. The important parts are already covered in other articles, such as Norrath. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment So far, the only argument I see is WP:NOEFFORT. We'd better hurry and delete this, as 2 months is dangerously approaching the edit deadline...oh wait, no it isn't. Please argue the article's potential, not the article's current contents. -Verdatum (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  Did you read the nomination? It details the policies that are broken. The fact that they have been broken for so long in this case only goes to reinforce that the article shouldn't remain on Wikipedia. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  Sure did. Guidelines are broken in the content of the article. so the offending content should not remain on WP. This in itself doesn't mean the article shouldn't remain on WP. Now I made it a comment instead of voting keep because I haven't checked things out yet, I strongly suspect it should be deleted, just not using these arguments. -Verdatum (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  WP:NOT and WP:V are policies, not guidelines. I think the real point here (and why this article has been AFDed 3 times) is that under no circumstances will any amount of improvement bring the article up to policy, mainly because reliable secondary sources do not appear to exist to provide real-world analysis for the plot summary or to establish notability satisfactorily. In other words, there is inherently no content that could be included in this fictional timeline because the basis for content inclusion on Wikipedia is whether or not such content appears verifiable, reliable, independent sources. It simply doesn't appear such sources exist, so the article should be deleted. Doctorfluffy (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  And that is a valid argument :) -Verdatum (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  Well, I didn't really say anything that wasn't already essentially in the nomimation. Doctorfluffy (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as the article concenrs a recognizble subject, contains multiple references, is well-organized, and survived two AfDs already. Plus, as others have argued, Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete In universe (and unreferenced) content with no significant coverage from real world sources. Best if transwikied to an an EQ wiki. Corpx (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FICT this article does not show notability beyond Everquest universe, nor do I have any reason to believe notability exists. Further, the afforementioned appropriate parent article is not remotely large enough to justify a WP:SIZE split. Ideally, any worthwhile content should be merged there. I don't see any worthwhile content, so again, delete. -Verdatum (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't see how this topic has any real-world notability. Nominator makes many other good points as well. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Since the game is a notable game in the real world, the summary of the overall sequence of events in a reasonably concise manner like here is notable as a part of the subject--an acceptable subarticle, written separately because of the size of the main article. DGG (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Article is not really improved since my first nomination, and all problems persist and seem likely to stay that way. Fram (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and merge with Norrath; between the two articles, one decent article should emerge. John Vandenberg (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge Suggest merging whatever possible to the main article; this is pushing the boundaries of WP:CRUFT, and while the game may be notable, not every facet of it is. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Fram (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Loren Coleman

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

Subject fails notability. The article seems to violate WP:SELFPUB and a search for reliable sources only turned up a book review. Justin ^chat 16:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep A Google News search provides ample material for an article. Coleman has indeed edited the article, but he hasn't been the sole editor, and, FWIW, he left a message on the article talk page saying that he would try to stay away in the future. Zagalejo^^^ 18:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I doubt he is notable as an academic particularly, but he does seem to be notable as a film producer and a lecturer on cryptozoology. Borderline semi-scientific subject field, but that isnt relevant. DGG (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Ragnarok Online. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Ragnarok Online locations

List of Ragnarok Online locations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, unnotable fancruft inviting original research.

There are no sources whatsoever to determine this article's notability to the real world or non-players of Ragnarok Online.

It contains fancruft which only invites original research. It also apparently is read like a game-guide, which is what Wikipedia is not.

This article with such issues are generally not acceptable in Wikipedia. IAmSasori (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Fully in universe game guide content with no real world applicability / coverage. Could be considered akin to making pages for FPS maps? Corpx (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Ragnarok Online. While it is unsourced, there is a lot of useful information here that we help someone able to do a merge. Ragnarok Online also needs to be trimmed. John Vandenberg (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Ragnarok Online. - No relevence to anything outside the game. The content of the page can be condensed into a paragraph or two under a "Locations" section in the original Ragnarok article. --Resplendent (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per above discussion. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge due to this having no relevance anywhere else. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spin Jet

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

Hello community! This article initally had an entire [section] with Spam. The spam was there since its conception. I believe that "spin jet" might be a real physics term, but I am afraid that it might have been invented to spread the spam. Since the article has no references and google searches for <"spin jet" physics> do not give me anything good, I suggest deletion per WP:NN. This sounds like something that was created to sound legit but is not. Any experts? Brusegadi (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Minor hits on google books. I cant judge if they're legit or not though Corpx (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The first few Google scholar hits for this phrase do not seem to have anything to do with magnetic particles, weather systems, planetary rings, or the other seemingly-unrelated concepts the anonymous editor of this article keeps trying to throw together: they concern jet engines, liquid blasting systems, and (in a particle physics article) a notation with "spin" as a superscript and "jet" as a subscript. Even if this is a valid term in some areas of science or engineering, the current article seems useless as a starting point. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Partons, spintronics, space plasmas, horoscopes, climate change, and an earthquake have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. Bm gub (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There was no deletion notice on the article, I've just added one. Bm gub (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As you wanted, I just stop to proceed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.248.115.158 (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, nonsense. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COD4 disease

COD4 disease (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete as per WP:Verifiability. A google search says CODE4 (not COD4) is a disease management program instead of being a disease. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 16:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete this neologism. Wikipedia is not for things made up while playing COD 4 one day. Actually, this article borders on violating WP:CSD#G3. —Travis^talk 16:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per G1. I love this article, and think it should be reinstated. DarkAudit (talk) 18:26, 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 John Vandenberg (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Tyler (musician)

Jason Tyler (musician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No notability demonstrated, no references, article created by subject (hence simply a vanity page), subject has removed relevant tags to article and discussion from talk page Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC, no references that assert notability. The only assertion of significance if being a part of the band Walking Corpse whose article also may not meet the critera of WP:MUSIC. AngelOfSadness talk 17:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That article is also created by the trhe subject of this AfD discussion, and has been subject to the same editing issues, i.e. tags being removed and the like. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly we have a conflict of interest issue as the person who created these article is very close to the subjects of the articles. It seems like the band article fails all of the critera for WP:MUSIC so I have gone ahead and filed for an Afd for that. AngelOfSadness talk 18:00, 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 delete under G4 criterion, article had the same content as before. --Oxymoron⁸³ 18:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eminem is Back

Eminem is Back (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – ()

Per WP:MUSIC, mixtapes are not notable unless there is substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as mixtapes are not notable as per WP:MUSIC. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 16:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

*Procedural, completing on behalf of nom; No opinion on Deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per G4. DarkAudit (talk) 18:25, 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; mix tapes have no presumption of notability under WP:MUSIC, and the article fails to establish any specifically. — Coren ^(talk) 04:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lost In London

Lost In London (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Per WP:MUSIC mixtapes are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Mixtapes are normally candidate for deletion unless they have enough coverage. It doesn't seem to be one that falls in that special coverage note. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 16:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. What do you mean by special coverage? Udonknome (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Special Coverage means a coverage that illustrates its significance. Otherwise it will be automatically deleted as per WP:MUSIC. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 11:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - mix tapes and compilations are not inherently notable. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn) - non-admin close. —Travis^talk 16:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Masjid Hajjah Fatimah

Masjid Hajjah Fatimah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not assert notability RogueNinja_talk 15:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep A gazetted National Monument does not assert notability? This nomination makes little sense.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as it clearly passes two most important and basic WP policies - WP:NOTE and WP:Verifiability. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 15:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —Huaiwei (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops I missed that. The declaration of notability should be a little more prominent. Withdraw my nomination please. RogueNinja_talk 15:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment That said, the article does indeed require lots of work to bring it up to standards. I am not entirely surprised that you missed that out based purely on the article's existing quality.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:10, 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, leave a message on my talk page if you need the deleted version of the article. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ambulance Service of Manchester

Ambulance Service of Manchester (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Well-written and carefully formatted article, but no indication of why this local ambulance company is encyclopedically notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Creator: I truly believe that this article should remain in Wikipedia. ASM has numerous achievements and (subjectively) a large civic importance in the Hartford, CT region. Would adding local and state-wide achievements help this entry?CSMorg (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes that would help. Particularly if you can add references to verifiable and reliable sources. -Verdatum (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - This article looks like it has plenty of potential. Agreed, it has not yet established notability, but it's only one day old! Can't we at least tag articles to request the establishment of notability before rushing to AFD? -Verdatum (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - On further consideration and research, I'm I can't see any evidence of notability. Perhaps the creator could maintain it locally or on a user subpage until research uncovers a reference establishing notability. -Verdatum (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. If it is kept, and I have no opinion on that, it should be renamed to Ambulance Service of Manchester, Connecticut in line with the artcile name for that city and to avoid confusion with the great city of Manchester in the UK. --Bduke (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete small city ambulance company. Important in region only, no general notability. All sources are probably goingto be trivial. They raised $X at the fund drive, they transported the victims of road accident Y. etc etc. DGG (talk) 05:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete in line with DGG's reasoning. There possible scope of notability is very limited Corpx (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Creator: I appreciate the constructive criticism that has been posted up to this point. I am currently in the process of researching material, in order to positively articulate why the Ambulance Service of Manchester should remain on Wikipedia. Please allow me time in order to research and obtain this information. Thanks!" 76.230.153.220 (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• From the looks of the direction of this !vote, I dont believe you will not be granted your request of time to fix this article up. However, may I suggest that you create an account and have this article "Userfied" (moved to a sub-page of your Userpage). there you can keep it as long as you wish while you bring it up to expected standards. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep: no case has been made for deletion, and insurmountable justification that this topic is notable enough for a separate article has been provided. Possibly the AfD was unfounded, but it makes no difference: this is a clear case for WP:SNOW. Geometry guy 13:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Foundations of statistics

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

Merge and redirect to statistics. This is not really a separate topic. (Procedural note: we don't have a "articles for merge", and nobody watches the talk page of articles like this.) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

By using the AfD procedure to accomplish your stated purpose of merging, you are violating WP:Point. The argument that "no one watches the talk page of articles like these" is ludicrious: of course, not, the article existed for mere 4 hours when you tagged it for deletion! Thanks for not prodding it, at least.Arcfrk (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't have an "articles for merge" because you're supposed to propose a merge. WP:MERGE would be the obvious place to look. You also seem very unfamiliar with the point of the article - why would you nominate it if you hardly even know what it is? --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Merge. In noway it deserves a standalone article. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 15:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Shalom and Niaz, are you trying to incite someone to point out that you are ignoramuses so that you can complain about "incivility"? We often see this on the AfD page: "'Physics'?? Never heard of it. OBVIOUSLY it doesn't need its own article. Let's merge it into 'physical education'." Etc. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per nom. Reads more like what should be a section of a large article than as a seperate article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am the person who created the article. The article is stub, and it has a sticker to this effect. It is supposed to be expanded into a whole article, as explained on Talk:Statistics: please see that discussion for details.
  

The foundations of statistics is an important topic. I just tried googling for "foundations of statistics" (with the quotes) and got 110,000 results. There are also whole books with that title (see Amazon). The topic has been much debated by statisticians for many decades. I have substantial skill in statistics; I can assure you that it is major, well worth an article.

Niaz: You should not be making judgements like "noway it deserves a standalone article", if you do not have a background in the topic.

HisSpaceResearch: No claim is made that the present stub fulfills the role it should; it is a stub, for expansion.

TheSeven (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I agree. We see this all the time on AfD. "I never heard of 'chemistry'. It sounds like some new religious movement. Delete the article or merge 'chemistry' into 'scientology'." Then when you point out the obvious fact that that is militant ignorance you get accused of incivility. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment That might be because calling someone "militantly ignorant" is uncivil. Jeodesic (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Which do you consider to be the more serious violation of the norms of society? Voting and strongly commenting while being in great ignorance of a topic or having someone point out (correctly if undiplomatically) that doing so appears to be miltantly ignorant? This is a serious issue, and it comes up not just on AfD, but in other, sometimes crucial, areas of society (which is my excuse for ranting).   TheSeven (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I think you're missing the fact that a spade is a spade. Being ignorant, and taking controversial action to which many objections will be (and have been) raised sounds like militant + ignorant = militantly ignorant. Michael Hardy may be more blunt than you would like, but he's not making personal attacks - he's talking about this AfD. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep TheSeven (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I prefer you to place an under-construction tag at this article if you feel that it would become a standard article soon. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 15:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I did not know about the under-construction tag. It would take a great deal of work to get the article to a truly good status (because it is intensely debated, from several perspectives). But I will add a bit more, especially references, if it is not deleted.   TheSeven (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Under construction" tag serves an entirely different purpose: to avoid edit conflicts if a major work is under way by one editor. The correct tag is "statistics-stub". Arcfrk (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to either statistics or preferably history of statistics, per nom. Jeodesic (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - This is not about the history of statistics. I will put this bluntly: if you believe that, then you are unfamiliar with the topic, and so should not be remarking on it. See, for example, the abstracts in the current seminar series on the topic being held at Stanford University (currently only available for the first half of the academic year, yet even that is enough). The topic is vibrant and intensely debated.

Additionally, as the 110,000 google results and several books on the topic make clear, the topic is too large to be properly incorporated in the main article.

TheSeven (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment hard to vote without knowing if waht is meant is the mathematical foundations in probability and analysis, or the philosophical foundations of using statistics, or the historical foundations in political arithmetic and experimental science. JJL (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Then don't vote. Ignorant people should not pontificate on topics on which they are ignorant. "Foundations of statistics" is the standard name for philosophical foundations of inductive inference from statistical data. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or move to philosophy of statistics. It needs much expansion, but there is a real gap in our coverage here that we should fill. There are 150,000 Google hits for "philosophy of statistics" OR "foundations of statistics" (with quotes and capitals as shown). If the consensus is to merge and redirect, history of statistics is not the right place for the small amount of content currently there; the distinction is somewhat analogous to philosophy of mathematics versus history of mathematics. It doesn't really fit in mathematical statistics and philosophy of probability either, and it has been removed from the statistics article already as excessive detail. -- Avenue (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't support a move anymore. The article's apparent focus has changed enough that the current title is more appropriate. -- Avenue (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. This (sub)topic is certainly rich enough for its own article, and an appropriate treatment of it within the main article on statistics would render the latter ill-proportioned. —SlamDiego_←T 18:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • In addition to my “Keep” above, I say do not move. The present title is optimal, given the history of this subject. —SlamDiego_←T 01:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but move to philosophy of statistics. I've been thinking for a while that there should be an article on this. Prefer philosophy of statistics to foundations of statistics to be clear that we're talking about the philosophical foundations, not the mathematical foundations (in probability theory, analysis, vector algebra...). Obviously there's overlap with history of statistics but there is a distinction (just as philosophy of science isn't the same as history of science) - for one thing some of it is still the subject of lively debate (some of which is visible in articles such as statistical hypothesis testing). --Qwfp (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - (I am the article creator.) I do not have a strong preference for "foundations of statistics" over "philosophy of statistics". I picked the former because it was more familiar to me, and shows up more in google. There was some brief discussion about that on Talk:Statistics, where I suggested that perhaps both articles should exist, with one redirecting to the other (I don't care which).   TheSeven (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This is a very very weak article in its present form, but it obviously is a separate topic from "statistics" and requires a separate article. When I say "obviously", I mean of course to those who know something about it; those who say emphatically above that it is not a separate topic and in no way deserves a separate article are loudly advertising their ignorance. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment "Foundations of statistics", not "philosophy of statistics", is the usual name of the essentially philosophical topic of inductive inference from statistical data. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep clearly notable, significant coverage, not the same as statistics itself. Move or merge is not really necessary, and I see no strong rationale to do so. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep definitely has potential for a substantial article. I'm seeing too many AfD these day happening immediately after an article has been created. It takes time for such an article such as this to develop. Yes there is much which could be said for example the large debate between Bayesians and non-Bayesians, this would fit very well here, yet does not get a mention in statistics. Philosophy of statistics would be a different article entirely. --Salix alba (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• They are distinct topics, true, so perhaps we should have two separate articles. They have similar numbers of Google hits. My reason for suggesting the latter was that the only real content in the article when this AfD began was Abelson's argument, which seems to me to fit better within a "philosophy of statistics" article than one on "foundations of statistics". But the article has moved onsince then. -- Avenue (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: AfD seems unfounded. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Michael Hardy, Salix Alba, CRGreathouse. Warn the nominator not to contravene the procedure and to use discretion in tagging new articles, especially, on subjects he is not familiar with. Arcfrk (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. There is a lot of stuff written by major statisticians that seems like it fits well under this title. MathSciNet has a subject class, 'Foundations of statistics', code 62A, that was in use from 1973 to 1999. This suggests it's a plausible topic for us to have an article on. Since 1999 the code seems to be 62A01, 'Foundational and philosophical topics.' EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Should never have been AfD'd. Paul August ☎ 03:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Hardy expertise and August point. Tparameter (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and wait to allow the article to develop. Why should a stub be flagged for deletion almost immediately? In addition the editor is obviously qualified, see the plan in the article talk page. Jmath666 (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The present article is egregiously bad, but the topic is important and is rather separate from the topic of statistics by itself, just like the Philosophy of mathematics is distinct from Mathematics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) 09:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'll point out that we also have a foundations of mathematics. --Cheeser1 (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. No reasonable explanation for deletion has been advanced. -- Dominus (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The article would benefit from work from a suitably expert editor, but that is not, in itself, a reason to bring this to a deletion discussion. If a merge is desired, there are procedures available to pursue that goal. But, before pursuing them, I'd advise the nominator to make themself aware of the nature of a foundations topic; a brief look at foundations of mathematics, a more fully developed article, might indicate why such an area can demand a separate article. Sturm 10:05, 3 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; mix tapes do not meet WP:MUSIC unless independent notability can be established. It was not. — Coren ^(talk) 04:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Free's World

Free's World (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Mixtapes are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable sources, per WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Mix tapes and compliations are not notable without proof of impact in the media or elsewhre. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete searching the web turns up nothing reliable. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Fram (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fufeng Group

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

Delete as per WP:NOTE. It was tagged for Speedy Deletion but user removed that tag and tried to give it a standard look. Provided Fufeng-Group address is not even a registered one. All other citations are in Chines language. Some vanity claims are made though there is no supporting reference exists. This user has created a good number of such articles on WP that were initially tagged for deletion but he removed those tag. I would like to request moderators to have a look at this issue. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Non-English language sources are acceptable for use on the English language Wikipedia, I believe. The article has four citations. Personally I think this could be kept.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a hard goods brick and mortar business, not some tech or web based business; as such it gets half the benefit of a doubt. It makes food ingredients, and Chinese manufacturers of that sort of thing have attracted considerable media attention over the past year; so even if this particular business has not been the subject of that sort of coverage, as a publicly traded company I think it borderline meets the business notability guideline. As to the Chinese references, all I can do is assume that they back up the article's assertion. The tone is nicely neutral, concrete, and free from goo-goo adspeak. I'm inclined to keep this version, just to serve as a model. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Could you please try to find some citations for this article. I am already working on another (created by same user). If we can verify this article with English citations, then I think it would be a safer case to keep this article. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 15:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Business Week and the Wright Group's investment service seem to at least provide English language confirmation of the existence of this business and the description here of what it does. Though I agree with h i s that English language sources are not necessary. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • English language sources are indeed unnecessary. Nice to have, but not always possible. matt91486 (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Even though sources are not required to be in English, sufficient English-language sources are in fact available to sustain an article about this company, given that it is traded on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:49, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bitch Muzik (album)

Bitch Muzik (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article has been repeatedly deleted. Previous creator User talk:Soccermeko seems to be a sockmaster. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete mixtapes are non-notable by default. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:MUSIC. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 15:42, 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guo Guangchang

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