Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purge server cache

Contents 1 Luan Bexheti 2 Regnum Online 3 The Mercy Dolls 4 Rick Emerson 5 Jasmina Mukaetova 6 Chad Perrone 7 Rufus Griscom 8 MV3 9 Fart fetish 10 Lobster Boy 11 The Barn of the Naked Dead 12 Underestimated-The EP 13 Freddy and the trojan horse 14 List of U.S. and Canadian cities by professional sports teams championships 15 Troy Bieser 16 Alternate versions of cartoon characters 17 Atomic Mass band 18 Wild Country (Alabama album) 19 Aprilwugowm 20 Gufibirous 21 Brent Vaca 22 David Graham (former Scientologist) 23 Yanichel Castillo 24 Yaoi house 25 Kira Takenouchi 26 Australian Brazilian 27 Comparison of MPI, OpenMP, and Stream Processing 28 Clash of the orchids 29 Roman Standards 30 Mikhail Abyzov 31 Alvis Ojeda 32 Trivection oven 33 Big Black Domination 34 Miss_Pakistan_World 34.1 Admitted conflict of interest 34.2 Information Removed 34.3 Controversies Section 34.4 Recommendation 35 Organizational accident science 36 Swedish bankruptcy auction 37 Natalie Victor 38 Barack Obama caucus and primary campaign 39 "Proletarian Union" Committee of the Portuguese Marxist-Leninist Communist Organization (in reorganization) 40 MTV Beach House 41 Energy (Keri Hilson song) 42 Fisher Park Public School 43 Good Things 44 Krescent 4 45 The Keepers of Jericho - Part II 46 The Keepers of Jericho - Part I 47 Qore (PlayStation Network) 48 Mike Duriez 49 Trevelino/Keller Communications Group 50 SpinetiX HMP100 51 Michael Elliott 52 Urban Archiving 53 Bands4boobs 54 Mark Beale 55 BCA Illustrated 56 B.P. Road 57 How to create an article on wikipedia 58 Global warming controversy 59 Jacob Sanders 60 Mangoteen 61 Patrick (SpongeBob SquarePants) 62 Falevai 63 La piccola banda 64 Argument from Time and Contingency 65 Amaya School of Home and Industries 66 There and back 67 Viva La Unit 68 Mott (a joke) 69 Swiftfuel 70 Jonathan Rietti 71 ZoX Universe - Space Arena 2 72 NUUO 73 New Ten Commandments (Yepii Decalogue) 74 War Symbol 75 John Mollica 76 Matt Montgomery 77 List of Romancing SaGa characters 78 Lambda Chi Rho 79 The Carolinas 80 Chris Taylor Bass Style 81 Starckdeutsch 82 Olivia and Ava White 83 Home Alone House 84 Garrett, Spencer and Mitchell Gray 85 Sonia (film) 86 Dhun (film) 87 Idhu Malai Nerathu Mayakkam 88 Roboticizer 89 Dinu Patriciu Foundation 90 UEFA Euro 2008 broadcasting rights 91 List of characters in Star Ocean: The Second Story 92 List of black characters in videogames 93 Developer 2.0 94 Ulteo 95 Jennie P. Stewart Elementary 96 Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny 97 Y.A.S.U. 98 Vic Jacobs 99 Steel Halo

[edit] Luan Bexheti

Luan Bexheti (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable actor(?), doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER notability standard. Nadda in Google News. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Based on info provided, there's no indication of notability. Ged UK (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. He has been interviewed on the Albanian-language service of Voice of America. I added an IMDb page on his as an external link. See also the article about his documentary at Një dokumentar për aktorët shqiptarë në Amerikë --Eastmain (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like you understand Albanian. I don't. Is the link that you provided about a documentary that he was involved with or is it about him. Basically, has he satisfied the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:BIO?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like a guy on his way up, but doesn't meet any of the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER yet: 1) no significant roles, nor roles in multiple significant films; 2) no evidence of large fan base or cult following; 3) no evidence of "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". While I don't understand Albanian, the link Eastmain refers to above only mentions him twice, among a list of other names, which makes it pretty clear that while he is somehow associated with the documentary, he is probably not the focus of it.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regnum Online

Regnum Online (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Online game, only references seem to be the game's websites, a Spanish Wikipedia article (!) and some forum postings. Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep there are sources, but not listed. The lack of sources doesnt mean that there arent any. So, please google before nomitating. Possible sources could be for example MMOSITE or GamersHell --Drhlajos (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  Please add reliable sources to the article. You seem to have listed two game fan-sites above, one of which is simply a reproduction of a press release from Regnum Online. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Mercy Dolls

The Mercy Dolls (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:MUSIC. awards are minor and for the clips creator, only one ep, claims of controversy are unsourced. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment My google search turned up 82 hits for this music group. Most are from youtube and blog sites here I'm leaning toward a weak keep at present since it doesn't look like spam. Artene50 (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Emerson

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

contested prod. This article fails to establish why this radio personality, out of thousands, is notable. No 3rd party references. Currently fails WP:BIO. EBSCO, Regional Business News, and ERIC database searches across Billboard, Mediaweek, local business journals, brought up only 1 hit and Emerson wasn't the subject of the article. Google news brought up a couple of hits from a paper in Portland, Oregon and a paper in Spokane. Can this article meet WP:BIO? Subject is a bit difficult to search on because of the common name. Rtphokie (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not taking a position on this. The guy and his show are clearly sufficiently notable for a WP article, but there's been more non-encyclopedic editing on both articles than I'm interested in dealing with; and a bad article might be worse than no article. However, if anyone does want to work on a better article, here are just a few of the many sources available about Emerson: -Pete (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Taylor, Dawn. "Geeks tune in to their time: Disenfranchised find home on the airwaves and in pop culture", Portland Tribune, April 1, 2008.
• Werkhoven, Todd. "Static follows Entercom’s move", Portland Tribune, May 27, 2005.
• Beck, Byron. "Rick Emerson "Weenie" Roast: It Was Kind of Like Oz (HBO's Prison show, not the Land of Munchkins)", Willamette Week, May 16, 2008.
• Baumgarten, Mark. "Return of the pleasantness", Willamette Week, March 22, 2006.

[edit] Jasmina Mukaetova

Jasmina Mukaetova (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable; searches only seem to give blog/youtube-style links  Chzz  ►  03:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. Additionally I'm am I correct in thinking that the above keep was placed here by accident? Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment if she truly conducted a world tour, she passes WP:MUSIC. Does anyone speak Macedonian? I assume that's why the google fails? WilyD 14:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• This Blog claims she's given a concert in Switzerland, for instance. Maybe a Macedonian spelling or something is the culprit here? WilyD 14:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Јасмина Мукаетова seems to be the Macedonian spelling, but it doesn't seem to help much. WilyD 14:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep jasmina mukaetova is well known in the Republic of Macedonia, throughout the Macedonian Diaspora and other Balkan states Cukiger (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 23:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Is there a policy about cross-language notabily? This person may be notable in one language or country, but I can't see any notablity in English. --Thetrick (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The policy is that if something is notable anywhere or in any language it is notable for English Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia about the whole world which is written in English, not an encyclopedia only about subjects in English speaking countries. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep For now, at least, until our Macedonian friends can verify notability. --Ecoleetage (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Gets plenty of coverage in the Macedonian media, e.g. [1] [2] [3]. I've put some of those sources in the article to confirm international touring. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chad Perrone

Chad Perrone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a non-notable singer/songwriter. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Averi. At this point in his career, his only real claim to notability appears to be his association with that band. I couldn't find any substantive sources discussing his solo career.--Kubigula (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Perrone did start with Averi, a successful regional band, but he has now launched a successful solo career, starting with his signing with Chrysalis Publishing, one of the largest publishing firms in the world (http://www.us.chrysalismusic.co.uk/core/roster.cfm?scope=102829&is_writer=1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Missingmat (talk • contribs) 05:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• • comment Notability is not contagious; you can't "catch" it by being associated with a notable firm or person. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 23:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• delete not notable. Happydazer (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rufus Griscom

Rufus Griscom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

For starters, I think this could go under CSD.

1. It is very short
2. It is not notable (no secondary sources etc.)

I have a website, but not a Wikipedia article. StewieGriffin! • Talk 15:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

*Speedy Delete although being short isn't a reason for deletion the does not really assert notability or provide reliable 3rd party references for verifiability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Tag as unreferenced and stub, but I think the subject is clearly notable. Media Life Magazine. Random House (where it states, "Rufus Griscom left his job as an editor and director of new media in book publishing to cofound Nerve.com. His writing has appeared in Publishers Weekly, the Wall Street Journal, the Baltimore Sun, and other publications.") New York magazine. Wired. The New York Times. Tan | 39 15:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Is being the founder and CEO of a company automatic assertion of notability? If so than it doesn't meet the speedy criteria so I'm crossing my Speedy Delete out. Not sure enough about the criteria for author notability and such so abstaining until further discussion by others that know better than I. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:BIO and WP:N are the applicable policies here, and should probably be understood by anyone participating in this AfD. As this isn't a candidate for speedy deletion, I'm not sure how to interpret your responses. Per WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I personally think that being covered in the New York Times, among the other lesser sources I quoted above, is definitely an indication of notability. Perhaps I am misinterpreting your comments, and if so, I apologize for trying to "educate" you :-) Tan | 39 16:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment When I "voted" speedy delete the article met the criteria (from what I saw). I asked "Is being the founder and CEO of a company automatic assertion of notability" in order to clarify whether my initial reaction was incorrect. Obviously the article has undergone changes and therfore I removed my initial "vote". Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment What sort of stub is this? Basically, why is he notable? Is it because he is now a CEO or because of his past work? The lead should clearly state what he is known for, but it wasn't clear to me if he should be sorted as a dotcom startup ceo (honestly, who isn't?) or as a publisher or something else. JackSchmidt (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion of notability; could have been speedied. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 23:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Nerve (website), which he apparently co-founded and his claim to dubious WP:BIO notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MV3

MV3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article on three players who were collectively known as "MV3" for a couple of St. Louis Cardinals seasons. However, the article boils down to just stats on the players and a summary of the 2004 season, which can be/is already on the the articles on the three players and the St. Louis Cardinals article. Tavix (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This term was not widely used enough to warrant it's own article. Should be mentioned on the individual player articles and perhaps the relevant season pages. Spanneraol (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I'm a Cardinals fan who has followed them pretty closely over the years (though I haven't lived in St. Louis or read the local newspaper regularly since 1973), and I have to say that I've never seen this term. Deor (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge then Delete any relevant info not already in the other articles. Or, if there's a "St. Louis Cardinals 2004 World Series run" type article, merge there. (And I say this as a Cards fan... I've heard the term, but... yeah, not really enough for a whole article.) umrguy42 04:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment The 2004 St. Louis Cardinals season article would probably be the proper place for this information. Spanneraol (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fart fetish

Fart fetish (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced, does not assert notability or cite reliable sources, and appears to be original research. An article about the same thing was deleted in 2006 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fart fetishism (2)) however there was a previous AFD with "keep" result. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 22:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources under this title nor under the more "medical" name of Eproctophilia (which I learned from Encyclopedia Dramatica). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete until reliable sources can be found, either under this name, or "Eproctophilia". --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 22:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Without any meaningful research content, I think it can go.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete let this one blow in the wind. JuJube (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Shaking the Delete aerosol Without proper referencing, it would appear to fail WP:N. --Ecoleetage (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless and until there is some sourced content to go in it. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lobster Boy

Lobster Boy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. A quick google search for "William Kofmehl III" (the subject of the article; searching for Lobster Boy would have shown a lot more results than just this one) showed 24 results, and that's including Wikipedia and related mirrors. There are no substantial links from other pages; just redirects and related etceteras. Basically, I feel that this subject is non-notable in regards to Wikipedia, despite garnering a bit of local press. CyberGhostface (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, delete. This didn't spur any real controversy or substantial media attention, nor are there any indications it was taken seriously as "performance art". Just another story of someone adding a little color to a college campus. Also, let me point out that the sideshow performer/convicted killer Grady Stiles, known professionally as "Lobster Boy", is much more deserving of the link, considering that he's been the subject of books and documentaries. -- P L E A T H E R _talk 07:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Barn of the Naked Dead

The Barn of the Naked Dead (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable album. Declined speedy (properly so - I thought it was a coatrack article about the artist). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable artist means non-notable album. Ironholds 19:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Underestimated-The EP

Underestimated-The EP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, just released EP, fails WP:MUSIC. ukexpat (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freddy and the trojan horse

Freddy and the trojan horse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, just released single, fails WP:MUSIC. ukexpat (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:RS and is WP:CRYSTAL. Artene50 (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of U.S. and Canadian cities by professional sports teams championships

List of U.S. and Canadian cities by professional sports teams championships (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is original research because it is an arbitrary synthesis of data. It awards past championships to a team's current city, eg, the NBA championships of the Minneapolis Lakers are credited to Los Angeles. To my knowledge, none of these leagues have an official stat of championships by city, so there is no standard beyond Wikipedia to decide how these should be listed.  Randall Bart   Talk  21:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not sure I'd worry too much about original research but it doesn't really satisfy WP:LIST - the criteria involved are rather arbitrary. Shereth 23:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps not original research; but the nom is correct that this is a fundamentally flawed list of cities by number of championships, since it apportions championships by teams rather than by cities (Atlanta, for example, has no NBA championships; the Hawks were in St. Louis when they were champions). I also agree with Shereth (I think) that this list is based on a loose association of topics (though I don't think that is covered in WP:LIST). Deor (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per the above... maybe not strictly OR, but definitely I think falls under the not-so-good side of synthesis. umrguy42 04:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as biased and arbitrary, and factual false. Championships are not won/held by cities when the teams didn't play in that geographic region when it was won in the first place. Defunct teams have won championshps, despite the fact they don't exist anymore. 74.15.104.182 (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete More fun to write than it was to read; no context at all, full of strange rules that a championship relocates to a current city (that Sacramento NBA championship was won by the Rochester Royals); now that it's done, what does it prove? Mandsford (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I've been bugged by this page since I first read it. I had visions of fixing it, but I realized I would have to make decisions that Wikipedia editors should not make (eg, East Rutherford NJ is New York City, so are San Francisco and Oakland a single city?). The synthesis is not really advancing a point, but it is synthesis. For something to appear in Wikipedia, a little bit of synthesis is okay, but it must be possible for some other source to produce the same data. That's not true of this page, so as I see it, this fits within the outer margins of OR.  Randall Bart   Talk  23:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - out of nothing else, just for being terribly wrong. matt91486 (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Troy Bieser

Troy Bieser (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources, only sources are MySpace and/or trivial in nature. Only real claim to notability is that he co-wrote "Baby Girl" for Sugarland. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of enough WP:N Artene50 (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I found an article in the Intelligencer Journal which, although it is purportedly about the band Star Radio (Bieser's first band), actually contained a fair bit of biographical info about Bieser, so I have added that to the article. That, along with the significant mentions in Creative Loafing, and the songwriting nomination, adds up to enough notability for a keep in my view. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The few micro-claims to notability don't add to WP:BIO "significant coverage" requirement. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate versions of cartoon characters

Alternate versions of cartoon characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am proposing this article for deletion because it's unnecessary and unencyclopedic. It's just a list of how alternate versions of characters can be created, the more revelant of which have their own articles already, eg. Younger versions of cartoon characters. The other information, such as cartoon characters having pets that look like them, should be in the cartoon character article, not in a separate one. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{Articles touched by my noodly appendage} 21:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No need for this article; mostly redundant to Younger versions of cartoon characters but with more OR. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - now it appears to be a list of lists --T-rex 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I get the concept, but it's poorly organized, written by someone musing about the different ways they've seen a franchise extended. Mandsford (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atomic Mass band

Atomic Mass band (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is about the former line-up of Def Leppard. Despite being quite a notable band, I don't see any notability on their former line-up. Actually, I've been trying to redirect this page to Def Leppard, just as it had been done in Atomic Mass (band), but the creator of the page and some other editors keep undoing it. I could redirect it again myself, but an AfD debate may prove useful in convincing them. There's no need to delete the article, a redirect is perfectly suitable for this situation, and all content featured on this page could be easily taken to Def Leppard's article. Victor Lopes (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect. fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Core bits of this article are already in the main Def Lep one. Redirect to Def Lep 1977–1979.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect Already mostly merged anyway, does not have any reasonable claim of notability on it's own, only source is official Def Leppard fansite, who apparently also felt it did not need it's own entry. I would add that while I understand the nom's frustration, requests for comment are another way to get outside opinions to form consenseus on issues not directly related to AfD. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wild Country (Alabama album)

Wild Country (Alabama album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources, no chart singles, no reviews, no label even. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines for albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per TenPoundHammer. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There is a very short AMG review and that's about it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yanichel Castillo

Yanichel Castillo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Self-published author with no third-party references in the article. Deleted twice before because the whole article was copied from the Jane Yolen article, but since the current version has some other stuff, the author could have just used that as a template (even though the claim that he's a "modern day Aesop" is still cut-and-pasted from the other article). The article claims he's won awards from the national scholastic press association, but their website has no mention of him (even though it lists all the award winners). Similarly, the article claims awards from the Miami Herald, but their online archive has no mention of him, and I can't find any other mentions of him online aside from self-submitted pr sites. Since nothing in the article is verifiable, or is verifiably false, it's better off gone (and even if it was all true, winning prices for student writers is a questionable claim of notability). - Bobet 19:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I agree. Congrats to Bobet for excellent research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Yanichel Castillo is a credible local author in Miami, Florida. His novel, Sounds, is available for sale online and in bookstores. Google list several PR releases for his novel and The Miami Herald has several published articles on him. The similarity between the Jane Yolen entry and the Yanichel Castillo are not enough to claim that it was copied. The columnist, Ana Mendendez, labeled Yanichel Castillo as the modern day teenage version of Aesop and "the future of American Literature", Mrs. Yolen got a different review from a different source. The information posted can be verified. I agree, there is no verification for the school awards being listed, however, that does not discredit the complete article or qualify for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.182.68 (talk • contribs)
  • You claim articles about him were published in the Miami Herald, yet Bobet already mention the Herald's online archive doesn't have a single mention of him. Mind explaining that? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - there are no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. If there's no sources backing the claims to noatability, there's nothing even to discuss. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete hoax that's sourced to non-existent articles and awards. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a hoax as the book exists [4] and the subject was editor of his high school newspaper [5], but there is no sign of the sort of coverage that would be enough for notability, and the book was published by vanity press lulu.com. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yaoi house

Yaoi house (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete. Non-notable publishing company. All references I could find appear to be self-promotion by the subject. Most of the editors for this article are single-purpose-accounts, editing only this article and the article about the publisher's apparent top author, Kira Takenouchi (BTW, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kira Takenouchi). I kissed a girl with 13 fingers (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As above. Current contents veer dangerously close to an attack page by drawing attention to the owner's supposed mismanagement and mental illness. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Dangerously close? This page reads like outright defamation, especially the part about working with a mental illness. Not sure if can be saved with a rewrite, but I didn't find enough Eng lang. cites to do it. EBY3221 (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as attack page. The personal attacks are attached to a blog, not to a reliable source. I removed them and tagged for speedy deletion as an attack article, which it is. Let's not let this go on too long. --Blechnic (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Declined speedy. The defamation was added by an anon and has been reverted. Always best to check for vandalism before assuming the worst. No comment on the notability of the subject. Looking through various versions, one has to doubt notability. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, my bad, but now you can ban me from Wikipedia! Praise your juju. Blechnic (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I would not go that far. Those who have proposed deletion based on "attack" may want to discuss the article's other merits and demerits. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• As with Kira Takenouchi, Delete as lacking notability or verifiable, reliable sources. Little more than a vehicle for promotion of subject's works. Dlohcierekim 03:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 10:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Has sufficient context to identify the subject. Even asserts notability. An article can be short and still assert notability. <<sigh>> Dlohcierekim 13:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kira Takenouchi

Kira Takenouchi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete. Non-notable author. All references I could find appear to be self-promotion by the subject and/or her publisher. Most of the editors for this article are single-purpose-accounts, editing only this article and the publisher's article, Yaoi house‎. (BTW, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaoi house). I kissed a girl with 13 fingers (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete same reasoning as with Yaoi house, above. Non-notable, borderline attack page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as attack page. The personal attacks are attached to a blog, not to a reliable source. I removed them and tagged for speedy deletion as an attack article, which it is. Let's not let this go on too long. --Blechnic (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• As with Yaoi house, speedy deletion is not appropriate as there are neutral versions. As with Yaoi house, Delete as lacking notability or verifiable, reliable sources. Little more than a vehicle for promotion of subject's works. Dlohcierekim 03:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 09:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  Where is the lack of context in this page? Is A1 really what you meant? This article cannot be speedy deleted Fritzpoll (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There's even an assertion of notability. I think the focus should be on attempting to find verifiable, reliable sources that show the subject meets notability requirements. If those can be found, we can keep the article. Cheers Dlohcierekim 13:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Brazilian

Australian Brazilian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Australian Brazilians are a really small population in Brazil, in fact its only 1,415 people. They have not contribute to Brazil's history and culture, and they are nowhere in Brazilian society. Why is there a page for an unnotable community? This is such a useless page! Lehoiberri (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Portions of this nomination have been struck through by VirtualSteve (VS) as per comments below - please make a nomination on good faith without causing needless offence.--VS ^talk 02:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Expand if possible, delete otherwise. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge To article on immigration in Brasil. --Ecoleetage (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge The info probably should just go to a table in another article. If there's enough material, eventually it will be added and the article can break out of the generic immigration article. --Gimme danger (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge, insufficient content for a separate article, no sources. This is, however, one in a series of poorly-worded nominations based on an assumption that an ethnic grouping's notability is based on its size, and on whether the page is useful or not. I strongly suggest the nominator read WP:N before making another nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 20:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge: I'd also like to caution Lehoiberri slightly; his remarks could be considered offensive. Ironholds 20:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge data as suggested by Ecoleetage. Agree with caution to nominator and explanation that was placed on his talk page - and have acted boldly and struck through offensive non-important part of the nomination.--VS ^talk 02:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or at least wait a bit longer. It was only written a few days ago - with further research more items could be added to make it worthwhile. Kransky (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to a demographic article any material that can be attribute to reliable sources. I agree with the nomination in principal about these racial grouping articles which are prone to OR, Synths and questionable notability. Articles of this ilk should be considered in context of contributions to a society that makes the racial group as a whole notable. Gnangarra 12:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of MPI, OpenMP, and Stream Processing

Comparison of MPI, OpenMP, and Stream Processing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This seems to be unreferenced WP:OR, needs review by knowledgeable editors ukexpat (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This is not OR in the slightest. Each of the three things being compared here are well defined and referenced in their own right. A derivative page of this nature can essentially inherit the sources from the three articles under comparison. While the 'pros and cons of openMP' are somewhat suspect as potential technological POV, none of this merits deletion of this article. HatlessAtless (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Will edit to improve Thank you for both of your comments. However, I think the page deserves its existence. As said by HatlessAtlas, the article comes from existing web pages on three topics. What I plan to do is summarizing what's existing and rewrite them in a more readable fashion as a comparison. I've seen quite many articles of comparisons, including Comparison of Linux distributions, Comparison of instant messaging clients, Comparison of Nvidia graphics processing units, Comparison of virtual machines, and many others of this type. I agree that the article needs more work, both the content and the wording, and I'd like to keep editing to improve the page. Please let me know if you have other suggestion. Thanks. ALife (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)ALife

[edit] Roman Standards

Roman Standards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparent hoax. Creator registered 10 February 2007, received cryptic warning (aparently about another hoax article the same day, can an admin verify?). 11 Feb, created this article. Posted to talk page addressing the issue at 20:37 ("studied the subject for years", etc.). At 21:26 a "Prof.Wilson" registers, posts to the talk page in support of the article at 21:34, then disappears forever. Another editor (see article talk page) found a reference to a god with this name who was a god of military standards, not technical standards. Seems the god might* have existed, but the editor who studied this for years got basic terminology wrong. *Unable to find any reliable sources for this god. Source found by other editor is speculative, at best. Nothing to keep. Maybe Prof.Wilson and/or Val.policelli will explain what I'm missing? Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Gee, d'ya think some kid named Ryan may have had something to do with the creation of this article? Google Books and Scholar searches turn up nothing, and plain Google turns up nothing relevant. No reliable sources provided in article or discoverable elsewhere; fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Actually, my bad PROD guessed someone worked at a company with an agressive beancounter named Ryan. I've now checked the editor's remaining edits: all are related to creating and supporting this page, before disappering with the Professor (Gilligan and the Skipper as well?). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • In researching this, I came across a humorously classicizing poem about baseball by Eugene Field, in which "Ryanus" is used to refer to Jimmy Ryan, an 1880s outfielder for the Chicago White Stockings. Perhaps this article's author is a fan. Deor (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete deliberate misinformation/hoax. Author claims to have studied source over the course of many years, but cannot cite a single literary source of any kind? The one slim connection to a standard bearer still doesn't work, because getting lucky with a hoax and having it connected to something similar doesn't make it less hoaxy.HatlessAtless (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced at best, but agree it is likely a hoax that has been here way to long. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I found one source that mentioned it possibly (added to page). I found two others that are just mirrors of this page. Leaning towards hoax. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• The creator's deleted article was pretty similar to this one, describing a Roman god named "Ryanus". As far as the possible source goes (romanofficer.com), they're listed as a designer in South Beach, but they don't list a physical address or a store location. (That seems odd -- if you're in South Beach, why not open a storefront and get people wandering in to buy jewelry?) I have a lot of doubts on the authenticity of this article, so I'm going to go with a delete on this one. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The *existence* of Ryanus doesn't read like a likely hoax to me. However - I see nothing of value in this article; much of it I suspect is false or misrepresented. Perhaps if at least *one* notable source could be turned up on the topic I'd change my mind. Coanda-1910 (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I get the feeling that this was written by Ryan's girlfriend. Mandsford (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mikhail Abyzov

Mikhail Abyzov (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I suspect this is not notable; speedy was denied because admin couldn't read russian refs (neither can I); admin advised an AfD  Chzz  ►  06:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Being a Manager of an unreferiable Russsian company is notable. If notability can be established in Russian, then the appropriate wiki may be used. However, I doubt it. Rotovia (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I am the admin who refused the speedy deletion. Notability can be established using sources in other languages, provided they are reliable sources. The problem is that I can't tell if the sources are reliable or not. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Very weak keep, the E4 is really a big company (the biggest engineering company they claim on their site), but the guy is not the President he is just the Chairman of the board. The company is a holding that means that they have bought a few Soviet time companies that are more or less self-govern, thus, they are much less prominent then their subsidiaries. The guy was indeed proclaimed "The best young manager of Russia" in some year, they have references, it may be seen as a claim to notability. But on the other hand we do not have an article about this E4 group nor about their President. It is weird to have an article about the chairman of the board. The article is badly written as a resume or commercial advertisement. In other words I don't see the reasons to delete the article nor any convincing reasons to protest the deletion. Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —_{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Very weak keep E4 big company JukoFF (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable businessman; concentrate instead on creating a decent (or indeed, any) article on E4 itself. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak DeleteNeutral If the references have more documented instances of notability, the article certainly does not reflect it. If they exist and no one who speaks Russian cares to add them, then it is unlikely the article would have survived a PROD. Jclemens (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. If he were truly notable, there'd be English language references; what is notable in Russia may not be notable elsewhere. Renee (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't know whether or not the subject is notable in Russia, but I do know that if he is notable in Russia he is notable enough for English Wikipedia. The "English" in "English Wikipedia" simply means that the articles are written in English, not that there are only articles about English speaking subjects. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The article reads like a vanity piece. Maybe create an article on this E4 group and add a small section that doesn't look like a resumé listing the top-level employees instead? Qaddosh|_contribs^talk 18:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. There is plenty of media coverage in English and in Russian – far more than is need to establish notability. Just to pick one example this one lists the subject as one of Russia's most powerful oligarchs. I don't really understand the comment above about him being only the chairman – the chairman of a company can be just as powerful and notable as a president. As far as I am aware Roman Abramovich has been chairman rather than president of most of companies that he has been invloved with. With the way the energy market is going Mikhail Abyzov is one of the most powerful people in the world. Not to have an article on him would simply make Wikipedia look ridiculous. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  It sounds like this article really needs someone to invest a bit of time in it. Given any evidence in that direction, I'll be happy to change my position to keep. Jclemens (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that someone should spend some time on the article, and I would be happy to do so when I have that time, but not with a gun held to my head. The sources I linked to above clearly establish notability of the subject so there is no reason to delete just because it takes much more time for a constructive editor to expand an article than for a destructive editor to call for deletion. If you're really that keen on time being spent on this why not do it yourself using the sources I have shown? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If I had time, interest, or subject knowledge, I would indeed. My apologies if that came across as any sort of a threat, or an admonition for you yourself to be WP:BOLD--I really did mean 'someone,' not just you. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete being a leader of a non notable organization does not make you notable. I would possibly support a merge into an article on E4 if its notability can be established firmly. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alvis Ojeda

Alvis Ojeda (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Never played at the highest level in his sport (never made it to Major League Baseball) and hasn't received significant media coverage, thus not meeting the WP:BIO/WP:ATHLETE notability standard. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. If I'm reading that right, he's never been in the majors and is technically not even in the minors anymore. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable; getting tired of the vanity entries.Renee (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: The WP:BASEBALL criteria for notability includes players who "Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, Korea Baseball Organization, Chinese Professional Baseball League or any other top-level foreign league." This person plays in the Nippon Professional Baseball league and is therefore notable by the wikiproject's guidelines. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also note that there are quite a number of secondary sources which discuss this player: [6], and he has played for the Navegantes del Magallanes in the Venezuelan Professional Baseball League which is the top league in his native country.[7] Kinston eagle (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• So, are you arguing that a WikiProjects standards can overrule the general notability guideline? Beeblbrox (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What general notability guideline doesn't he meet? "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." He meets all that through the articles cited above. "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability." He also has coverage from multiple sources - from multiple countries. The fact that he has met general notability guidelines was a given. The only question in my mind was whether he also lived up to the higher standards for notability imposed by the relevant wikiproject. In my opinion he does. Kinston eagle (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've looked through the secondary sources from Google News that Kinston eagle linked to above, and I think it's a good example of how it can be misleading to rely on counts of hits. I didn't see any sources that provided information that could actually be used to expand the article; they were all either accounts of individual minor league games in which he played or articles with trivial mentions of him in a list of players. (I admit, however, that I was not able to read the Spanish-language articles.) Hence, these are the type of references that WP:BIO discusses when it says "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." BRMo (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• The WikiProject standards (Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball#Players) are not intended to impose a higher or different standard; rather, they represent an attempt to apply the general notability standards to the special case of baseball, which has unique characteristics not found in most other professional sports. In particular, Minor League Baseball consists of leagues that are essentially training programs for Major League Baseball, and hence aren't quite the same as "fully professional" leagues in other sports. The WikiProject standards are based on the criteria that have been persuasive in past AfD decisions. BRMo (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per participation in top level professional leagues in Japan and Venezuela. Spanneraol (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keepscases Keepscases (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Close as bad nom because the standard for professional athletes is "played in a fully professional league" and that has been met. The "highest level" standard only applies to amateur athletes. There is no policy based justification for deletion presented by the nominator. Jim Miller (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Firstly, "bad nom" is not a reason for the procedural close of an afd discussion. Secondly, the "played in a fully professional league" is obviously meant to be understood as connected to the second prong of WP:ATHLETE - "highest level." Otherwise, every single minor leaguer - since they play in a fully professional league - would be considered notable for Wikipedia notability purposes. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Is there any evidence that he's actually played even one game in Nippon Professional Baseball? I wasn't able to locate any site providing English-language season-to-date statistics, but this site provides box scores, and I didn't see his name in any of the Hanshin Tigers boxes. As has often been noted, minor leagues are on ambiguous ground regarding WP:ATHLETE, since modern minor leagues are basically training programs and reserve rosters for Major League Baseball. Because the Venezuelan Professional Baseball League is part of minor league baseball, I think it shares these concerns. However, if he's actually played at the highest level in Japan, I wouldn't have any problem with keeping the article. BRMo (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

He is on their roster. Here is his page on their site: [8] Kinston eagle (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that he was on their roster, but the Hanshin Tigers' roster appears to be very large (~70 players) and I'm guessing that there must be a smaller "active" roster. Appearing on a roster doesn't meet the notability criteria—both WP:ATHLETE and Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball#Players require that a person actually plays at least one game at the specified level. BRMo (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese League question is really irrelevant since he has played in the highest baseball league of his native land - Venezuela. Players who have played in the highest league of their homelands have always been considered notable on Wikipedia. See for example: Daniel Maddy-Weitzman and Roel de Mon. Kinston eagle (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The Venezuelan League is part of Minor League Baseball and he played there while he was under a major league or minor league contract. Hence, my understanding is that he had to get his team's permission to play there and he was subject to the major league team's supervision. That seems more like a situation of training and development (i.e., minor leagues) than a fully professional league. Japan, on the other hand, is fully independent of Major League Baseball. BRMo (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

......and there's no source that he even played in Venezuela. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is. I already gave it above, but here it is again: [9] Kinston eagle (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Venezuelan Professional Baseball League, which apparently is his claim to notability, is the winter league of United States Minor league baseball as the article on the league clearly asserts. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per various arguments already presented. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete barring some evidence that he played in at least one game in a major league or other non trivial coverage. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• The Japanese league would obviously confer notability and it's terribly US-centric to say otherwise. That said, if no appearances in Nippon Pro Baseball can be verified, then the article should be deleted. matt91486 (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Nippon Professional Baseball is notable, top level in Japan. Highest level does not mean Major League Baseball. It means a fully professional league, which NPB is. --Borgarde^talk 10:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trivection oven

Trivection oven (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a real cooking device, just a plot element from a sitcom. non-notable outwith the episode itself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Another user accidentally tacked an improperly formatted listing onto the top of this one. Since the improper listing should have been at WP:CFD anyway, I've removed it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to be a real product, sourcing looks adequate for what it asserts, unless I'm missing something, and there's potential for future expansion. Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Again, seems to be real, and national advertising + mention on a sitcom (even if it's backhanded product placement) provide notability IMO. umrguy42 18:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge Does not seems to be notable enough for own article. SYSS Mouse (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge into what article? Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, real product that won awards well before the sitcom appearance (for instance). It's a high-end product that shows up in luxury home publications or cooking shows and should be able to have improved sourcing. --Dhartung | Talk 20:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Needs improvement to be more focused on the product, but seems to be real enough. Maxamegalon2000 15:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep -- nominator didn't look, just guessed since it was mentioned on TV it was fake. It took a long time to check to see if this was a real oven, Chris Cunningham. I did a google search and the first link returned was to the GE appliances web site about the oven.[10] Oh, and you can cook a Thanksgiving turkey in one in about 20 minutes. I did. --Blechnic (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per secondary sources. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miss_Pakistan_World

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

Blatant Form of Advertisement and Incorrect Facts Saratahir (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is a blatant form of advertisement. I have been trying to clean up the article for some weeks now and any fact that negatively reflects it( such as the contorversies it has encountered) get deleted. Even simple facts such as this pageant being unknown to the public gets deleted. Similary facts that were stated by the media regarding the organizers have been removed. I think the article does not reflect an ounce of truth and needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saratahir (talk • contribs) macy^talk 17:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This article has been tagged for the umpteenth time with a notice for blatant advertising. The only reason for that is that this articles seems to promote the subject only and does not do much justice to other points of views. Please regard these terms for content on Wikipedia

[edit] Admitted conflict of interest

See this edit and its summary. It says that one Daniel Thompson is working for the outfit that runs this event and is editing on their behalf. It's quite an edit, and repays examination. I note that Danthompsonjr has also been editing this article under that name. Morenoodles (talk)

Proof of conflict of interest

To summarise the conflict of interest issues, following is a collection of the investigations into the user's and their associates' editing MO.

• The users Sonisona (talk · contribs), Danthompsonjr (talk · contribs) and Tamara Daniels PR (talk · contribs) are put under scrutiny here.
• User Sonisona has only ever edited articles related to the Miss Pakistan World pageant or its contestants from the time this account has been created.
• User Danthompsonjr has been actively uploading pictures for the following articles only, almost always without a license and clear breach of copyright policies and has been warned as well. The user never cares to respond properly.
• The third user, Tamara Daniels PR made an edit clearly acknowledging that they were hired by the company to edit their articles. This use so far has made only one edit as of this writing.
• The website URL stated in the above mentioned edit points to the proprietors of the business being a one Daniel Thompson and another Tamara Atzenwiler. Clearly the user Danthompsonjr is Daniel here. The other edit using the other username Tamara Daniels PR was of Daniel's as well if the e-mail address is matched from his edit. It all makes sense.
• User Sonisona denies the facts here saying their is no Daniel working for them contrary to Daniel himself. This claim is questionable as the PR agency's website features the company's working under their blog entry here. Notice the highlighted words in the address for the mentioned blog entry:
  www.tamaradaniels.com/what-were-doing/mrs-pakistan-2008-proves-progression-still-lives
• The user Sonisona leaves a message on the talk page at one point. This message can be accessed here. Notice the words: "the team", "our true history", "mix our pictures". This was just after edits by Arunreginald proclaiming the company's associations with the Tamara Daniels PR agency. In this immediate post, these allegations were never condemned rather the user showed that there actually was a team working on the article, neither were allegations stating the user Sonisona to be the president of the company Sonia Ahmed challenged in any way.
• It was only after the query by user Morenoodles that the user User:Sonisona changed her comments.

This is more than enough proof to state that a serious conflict of interest is being exercised on the article page. Consider these proof, and please take note when voting. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 21:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Information Removed

The advertisers of this unknown event removed facts around the high profile pageants that have happened in Pakistan in the past and which continue to happen such as Unilever's "Shine Princess" and Pamolive "Face of the Year".

[edit] Controversies Section

Omg, has anyone read that section. It is such one sided blatant advertisement. There are no sources cited. An incident that occured between the organizers of this pageant and a Major News channel has been mis reported (from the perspective of the organizers) and a propaganda YouTube video made by these organizers has been quoted. This is absolutely disgusting. The integrity of Wikipedia should be maintained and such artciles should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.208.220.12 (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recommendation

I would ve recommended that everyone make an effort to clean up this entire article. However if you look at the articles history and addition that projects the pageant in a negative light or states any controveries around it from a neutral perspective get deleted and altered. None of the statements made are verifiable or backed by any facts. Its a very hopless situation and i think we are past the lets-work-together-to-improve-this stage so i strongly recommend a deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saratahir (talk • contribs) 17:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

*Strong Keep : Just clean and add proper information with references. There is no need to delete this. The article would be eventually created and thing would be the same. Assign a task force to keep article up to date. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete : After looking at various part of the article. The article has no sources and missing lot of critical information. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Subject appears notable; article needs cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral for now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The notability of the pageant is in fact questionable. According to the article, the original author wrote that this pageant is affiliated with the Government of Pakistan (official Pakistani pageant) but the Government of Pakistan has never endorsed it publicly. This was it's only ground for notability. Other than that, it is just an organisation that hosts events in a close room somewhere in Canada. I don't see a page on Wikipedia for any certain Alcoholics Anonymous group named "Sharabi Benaam" or another close-doored event that has no endorsements from the body it is representing. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 18:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, needing cleanup is no grounds for deletion. JIP | Talk 17:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete : I agree that the article is baseless and unsupported by facts.In addition there is too much propaganda and medling by the organizers of this event. Like i said before this is an Encyclopedia and not a platform for someone's fifteen minutes of fame —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.208.220.12 (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly delete the article, because as long as the article is being edited by the president of the company (the fact is clearly evident or dubious), or its associates (a fact noted on the talk page), it is blatant advertising and a solid example of a conflict of interest. If we delete this article, it would be easier to track the authors and their intentions, if this article is created. This is the first AfD anyway, let's delete the article and make the biased authors know their wrong. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 18:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments: If this page is not deleted and is dealt with via other means like COI or ANB, the process would take ages to complete. SholeemGriffin (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Very strongly delete: I think that the article should be deleted because any edit made, which attempts to make the article to be of a NPOV is deleted. I have tried to work with the authors of the article and have provided appropriate citations where needed in the "history" and "controversies" sections specifically. However my versions have been constantly deleted or reverted without discussion. The new material added is simply promotional for the pageant and does not cite any references. I have been working on the article for more than a week now and as the article history would suggest I have made numerous attempts to come to a consensus on this article with the other editors. They fail to comply by the rules and regulations set by Wikipedia and therefore I very strongly recommend this article for deletion. If my edits are to be deleted by the company editors, why not delete the article as clean up is IMPOSSIBLE. SholeemGriffin (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete This article and its contribution history prove most beauty contests, like this one, are unencyclopedic business venures. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Question. Could you please elaborate on how the crap quality of an article and/or its sorry history of censorship or whatever mean that the subject is unencyclopedic? Or do you have something else in mind? Morenoodles (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Slash and Burn This article is awful, I agree. It is a mishmash of advertising and misinformation, and most of the "references" do not support the claims of the article. However, I think there is sufficient notability for an article. The article should be cut down to a stub, removing all the crap, and the conflict of interest editors should be warned/blocked as necessary. Although I do understand how annoying it is to struggle to improve an article against editor's with wrong-headed agendas, I just can't get behind the nom's suggestion that "we are past the lets-work-together-to-improve-this stage." It seems like an admission that the article could be fixed. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: Could you please elaborate on the notability, which you think is sufficient? Morenoodles (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I'll remind everyone that an existing COI and reference and tone concerns =/= deletion. However, I agree that it's not notable. G-news pulls up three hits, and nothing in books or scholar. If this were a well-known pageant it would pull way more g-news hits than that. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete Advertising and mis-information. The constant reversal of any improvement undercuts any concept of keeping it. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete as advertisement and breach of WP:COI. --Ragib (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Very Strong Delete article is an advertisement for an obscure event and citing a youTube home made video hardly qualifies as a a sourceMarytee (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Very very very strong delete The authors actually had the nerve to remove all deletion related tags on the article pageSaratahir (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As the article's nominator, I think your position that the article be deleted is clear. Although I am dismayed at this latest abuse by POV pushers of this article. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC).
    • Yeah i didnt think of that:). I am studying the process of banning these users. Since i am very new to Wikipedia, i am unsure of the exact process. But these folks arent stopping with their vandalism and something needs to be done. If anyone here has any suggestions on how to do so please add your comments here. Thanks Saratahir (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
      • As you were new and unsure at 21:45, 13 June, I'm surprised by your confidence just 15 minutes later. The first thing for a newbie to do in a situation like this is to decide whether (1) to read up on what to do (and then read up, which will take a lot more than 15 minutes) or (2) pass on the matter to somebody else. Even if it's well intended, what's obviously mere bluster (which can't even decide if it's a "note" or a "formal warning") is unhelpful at best. Morenoodles (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment . Thank you for your commentsSaratahir (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. You'll see a comment signed by me near the top. But I didn't put it here. It was added in this edit by somebody who hadn't signed in. It does look like something I wrote elsewhere, yes. But if one side in a dispute is accusing the other of tampering with talk pages then that first side should be particularly careful not to do strange copy/paste jobs. [[[User:Morenoodles|Morenoodles]] (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Organizational accident science

Organizational accident science (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism. Google search shows 2 ghits [11]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete. What the heck is "...the compensated programmers will begin adding the materials"?? Is this related to "All your base are belong to us"? By the way, the "peer review" mentioned has already begun, and it isn't looking good. Non-notable, a neologism, and borderline speedy-delete as nonsense. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete Calling it a neologism is being a bit kind, in my opinion. And the part about "compensated programmers will begin adding the materials" strongly suggests this is spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This sounded kind of legit at first, but the Google search convinced me. Keepscases (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Expand if possible, but delete otherwise; the article only consists of one sentence and a handfull of links; it couldn't possibly amount to anything without serious expansion. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete; recreation of an already deleted article, and the article was written as SPAM (see edit history of the article). GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice due to the mention of "compensated programmers". Creator is about to be blocked for his username, as well. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I love that "compensated programmers" phrase. I've heard of a "compensated endorser" before, when Ed McMahon or Alex Trebek is selling old folks insurance in a TV commercial, but never "compensated programmers." How do I get a gig like that? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish bankruptcy auction

Swedish bankruptcy auction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is entirely original research and, in any case, has no clear point. The phrase "Swedish bankruptcy auction" has been, at best, misinterpreted. It is not a concept that has ever been in use at any level, in academic circles or otherwise, outside of Wikipedia. The references provided in the article do not support the content (see the article's talk page). Note that, for context, a similar article is also currently nominated for AFD, Swedish auction. Debate 木 16:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. The phrase refers to any auction (using any mechanism) of company assets that is triggered by bankruptcy – and if it happens in Sweden. Seems like the originator simply uses it as a kind of shorthand; no assertion in the article (or anywhere else I can find) of another defining characteristic, therefor non-notable. 9Nak (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. References do not support content (which in any case, does nothing to distinguish this as a type of bankruptcy auction). Obviously the rules and regulations of each jurisdiction will differ, but there is nothing unique about this or applicable in any other context. --Dhartung | Talk 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Swedish bankruptcy auction is a legal term used in the USA only (as opposed to a firm being reorganized under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code). The actual auction is normally a First price auction and has nothing to do with a Swedish-type auction, Swedish auction or Multiple-round auction, which is not a legal term, but an auction procedure arrived at by Auction design. Please look att the references. Additional references can be provided if needed. Max7437 (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Natalie Victor

Natalie Victor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google search shown 99 ghits [12], but no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. No sign of notability, fails WP:RS, WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails general notability criteria. As a note, the above mentioned Google search brings up many hits about other people of the same name so they're not even all about the person named in this article. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable and written in hopeless advertising language ("hit the city by storm" etc.). Gets half an amusement point for making clear that whatever company she works for has "asked not to be named"! LOL! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barack Obama caucus and primary campaign

Barack Obama caucus and primary campaign (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a content fork of Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. There is discussion on that article's talk page of creating a separate article for the primary campaign, but if that happens Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 will simply be renamed to indicate that covers the primary campaign. A new article on the same subject is pointless. Loonymonkey (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep At the moment I see a potential problem with the current situation of the article as it stands. Without violating WP:crystal ball we will have difficulty determining the exact weight of the primary campaign versus the 'presidential' campaign. The primary and caucus campaign was clearly notable for a number of reasons separate from the overall presidential campaign, and forcing it to stay as its own section would possibly violate WP:undue. My instinct here is that because the primary campaign was notable in and of itself, and distinct in numerous ways from the overall presidential race for 2008, I think it is too early at the moment to force deletion. HatlessAtless (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood my reason for nominating this. It's not for notability reasons, but the fact that an article already exists on this subject. Discussion is taking place on that article's talk page as to whether we should create a separate article for the general election, but currently this article is just a fork of that one. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with Loonymonkey's response. A new article for the general election campaign with a move seems to make more sense. HatlessAtless (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as unnecessary content fork and reduplication of information. Shereth 23:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete it is already in his Article

User:Mike T Boss —Preceding comment was added at 00:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per above Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 00:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, not for nothing but there is no AfD notice on the article concerned. I suggest this AfD be closed and listed correctly. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Tag has been added to the article. No need to close/restart this discussion, but the closing administrator may want to take in to consideration the fact that the article went without a tag for a day, and extend the discussion by an additional day if the consensus looks less than clear. Shereth 13:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, it looks like a bug with Twinkle (usually it adds the tag automatically). The notification went through but not the tag for some reason. I agree with Shereth's comment above. There isn't any reason to restart discussion, but enough time should be given for all concerned to weigh in (seeing as how only two edits have been made to the page, I don't think it's really a concern). --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This seems like a notable topic now and will remain so in the future. I'm sorry that I don't follow all the issues brought up by the other editors about this. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It is an unneeded content fork for an existing article on the same subject, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Nsk92 (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Proletarian Union" Committee of the Portuguese Marxist-Leninist Communist Organization (in reorganization)

"Proletarian Union" Committee of the Portuguese Marxist-Leninist Communist Organization (in reorganization) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Being Portuguese, I was curious about this article. However, I was unable to confirm notability for this organization Ecoleetage (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, as per arguments in previous afd. There are many issues to be resolved here, but deletion would not be beneficial. --Soman (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment The previous AfD ended in no consensus, and I hate to say the Delete arguments in the last round were somewhat stronger than the Keep arguments. It is hard to verify notability in either English or Portuguese. I wish more people would chime in here. Thanks! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - discussion in the last deletion debate showed that the information is verifiable, and that there should be more to say about the group, although unfortunately it's not yet in the article, probably because there are a lack of references on the web. I suspect that someone with access to the Portuguese press of the time could add much more. Notability standards for political parties are rather a grey area at present; if an upcoming proposal for this is accepted, it will be easier to get consistency on this. Warofdreams talk 20:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability per WP:N. Barely passes WP:V, if at all. Nsk92 (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MTV Beach House

MTV Beach House (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This doesn't seem notable enough to warrant an entire article. It aired only in 1993, and could easily be tackled in a sentence or two in the MTV article. DearPrudence (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Multiple non-trivial sources exist.[13] Most are pay per view though, otherwise I'd add them to the external links. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I totally remember it, and it's the sort of thing I might want to look up sometime. Keepscases (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, I remember it, and was not particularly interested. But my personal disinterest is not a reason to delete it =) JIP | Talk 18:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Peregrine Fisher's finds. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect There's not that much to say about it, could be covered here or here easily. I don't think "I remember it" is a valid argument. I remember when my sister was on the Uncle Al Show, but that doesn't make her notable. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Energy (Keri Hilson song)

Energy (Keri Hilson song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested redirect of non-notable song, per WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no chartage, no WP:RS, fails WP:MUSIC. I was going to say redirect back to the album, but as TPH has pointed out in previous discussions, very, very few people are going to type in that exact phrasing as a search term.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I have just restored the AfD to the article. It was down for 2 days. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - This page should not be deleted because, it is a legitimate single from an artist that is set to be extremely popular, she has been featured in many popular urban magazines & websites & is hotly tipped to be the 'next big thing'. The track is already available for download on Amazon.com & is doing well. I think this article is relevant & is worthy of remaining on Wiki. Maybe the situation should be reviewed at a later date? - Markieboy (talk)
• Comment - If the article is deleted, it isn't irreversable if the song later becomes notable. As it is, there is very little actual information in the article and none that can't be easily found to re-create the article, if appropriate, at a later date. That said, that the song has been released as a single or that the artist is notable (or expected to be very popular, etc.) does not mean the song is currently notable. Please see a detailed explanation of what (typically) is considered evidence of notability at WP:MUSIC#SONGS. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The general precedent is that when an artist is notable (passing WP:MUSIC), their singles generally get articles too. I don't see any reason why this particular single would be some sort of exception. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have seen nothing to indicate this precedent. Albums by notable artists are notable, as detailed in WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS: "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." But songs are another story: "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song." WP:MUSIC#SONGS (Note that it's redirecting songs to the articles on notable artists or albums.) If the precedent is otherwise, the consensus should reflect it. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fisher Park Public School

Fisher Park Public School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable School. Fails WP:ORG Delete GreenJoe 15:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It also fails to cite sources. GreenJoe 16:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. It appears to have more history than many other schools, having changed hands and changed its name on a number of occasions. Because of its complex history, it is not an ideal candidate for merger into its school district. --Eastmain (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I'm getting tired of these vendettas against school articles. Even a small school is a major public institution with an annual budget of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars and the hub of a neighbourhood or town. If subway stops, coffee shops, and anime characters qualify for articles, why shouldn't schools? In any case, Fisher is notable for several reasons, including the celebrities who attended it as students and the acrimonious public debate over the highschool closing a couple of decades ago. David (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on traffic lights, individual fast food restaurants, and individual gas stations, all of which do not and should not have articles. Each of these are major hubs in a neighborhood or town!

  "We have articles on this!" is generally a bad argument. The fact that individual schools are almost always the subject of discussion in reliable sources, well, there you're onto something. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  Those are good points, but I think that schools still stand out from the other examples. Individual traffic lights might cost a few thousand to put up, but each one doesn't have an operating budget of a few hundred thousand or a million a year; a fast food restaurant location or a very big gas station might have that kind of budget, but it's not a public institution. None is a community hub in the way that a school is: they don't host dances, sport events, candidate debates, community group meetings, sales, or fairs (well, maybe a gas station somewhere does all that, but if it does, it's probably notable enough for an article). Also, unlike the others, schools represent important stages in thousands of current and former students' lives. I agree that Fisher is particularly notable, but I think that ever school should be considered notable by default because of what I just listed (while every gas station or traffic light should not). After all, Wikipedia is not running out of paper, and school articles are not vanity pieces or trivia. David (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  Wikipedia's limit is not the amount of paper, but the supply of sources for words on that paper. One can make an argument that schools are as important as [thing we have] or as unimportant as [things we don't], but such an argument contributes nothing to an AFD.

  Once you focus on WP:V and WP:N and talk about whether we can write an article about this school based on the sources, you move from airy philosophical discussions that please none to practical discussions with applicable results.

  Wikipedia articles are not badges of merit or measures of importance or directories of public institutions. They are not awarded, they are written. They are summaries of what reliable sources have seen fit to say on the subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per refs added by Eastmain. This article now meets WP:N.--Sting Buzz Me... 22:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - this school has a particularly unusual history and sources are available to easily meet WP:ORG. Nominators should look beyond what is in the article to what is available to be added. Stubs are like small acorns; if they are pulled out of the ground they will never develop but if they are nurtured they may grow into giant oaks. TerriersFan (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The article gives no basis for its meeting the WP:ORG notability standard. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Things

Good Things (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song, didn't chart and wasn't covered in any reliable sources. Another one of Keri's songs was a contested redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment : In 2007, the song was #54 on Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Singles and Tracks. Europe22 (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oops. Still, it's not notable enough for its own page; there's very little to say about it besides that it charted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect back to Rich Boy (album). The name is simple enough to be a viable search term. Even though the WP:MUSIC guideline says a song is probable notable to because of it charting, we're still missing "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article".  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I don't care if it's deleted or not, but if it is, it should be redirected to Good Thing. The title of the page for this song should have been Good Things (song) from the start. If it's kept, this title change should occur.--Hraefen ^Talk 22:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC) .

• Delete and recreate with redirect per Hraefen. NN. Comment: The "charted" standard is too loose and needs to be overhauled. When it was developed, it was apparently without due consideration of how many charts there are, and how little they actually mean. J293339 (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep The film also meets the following principles of WP:MOVIE:

• • General principles
    • The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of film making.

It was awarded the Badil Al-Awda award, a very important and respectable organization and Award.

• • • The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.

The film was preserved in the Palestinian national archive and Badil Archive after receiving the Al-Awda Award. and if I am not mistaken it was preserved in the Aljazera archive after receiving the Al-Awda Award, and according to Badil website was shown in many Arab TV stations, that means a copy will be preserved in there archive .

Wikipedia will not publicize the documentary; it just gives information about it as it gives information about other Israeli films and documentaries that no one heard about or received any awards. Anyway TV stations will not search for films in Wikipedia, neither people interested in the films. Their source will be imdb or all movies. So you have no excuses now пﮟოьεԻ 57.

91.11.143.201 (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC) With respect

• I struck out the above comment, which was probably meant to be placed in another afd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Keepers of Jericho - Part II

The Keepers of Jericho - Part II (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable tribute album Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Helloween discography. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Keepers of Jericho - Part I

The Keepers of Jericho - Part I (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable tribute album Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Helloween discography. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Qore (PlayStation Network)

Qore (PlayStation Network) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is not enough notable information on the service to require an article. All the encyclopaedic information is already on the PlayStation Store page and is a good size. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 14:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Pinkkeith (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete already covered better at PlayStation Store. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - all of the relevant information is already (better) covered in PlayStation Store. False information on the Qore page too - I first corrected a sentence that claimed it was presented in 1080p HD (it's 720p) and now I see it being listed as Remote Play capable when it's not. SeanMooney (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The article was just recently created, give the editor(s) some time to expand on the content. --Pinkkeith (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It might be better to tag that the article needs more references. --Pinkkeith (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There are more than sufficient independent, tertiary sources discussing the various aspects of this service to justify an article. If anything, the Qore material should be cut back in the PlayStation Store article and spun out into this one. At worst, this is a redirect to PlayStation Store, making it not an AFD issue. Really, whether this should be in a separate article, or in the related PlayStation Store article, is a content issue that would be best discussed on the talk page of each article. Also per WP:DEMOLISH and Pinkkeith - the article was created on 4 June and has been regularly edited since, although don't expect that to continue while the AFD is underway (per WP:BITE). Debate 木 01:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I spent my time reviewing it! Over time, there WILL be more information! They barely had ONE episode out! Give it atleast 5 more episodes! Untraceable2U (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment As I mentioned above, because there is so little content on the service, I think it should be kept to the PlayStation Store article. If, over time, so much is added that it becomes too big, then this article should be re-created. At the moment, everything noteworthy on the topic is in the PlayStation Store article so there is no need for this new one.ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 06:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "no need for a new article" is not grounds for nominating something for AFD, per WP:DEL#REASON. Debate 木 07:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• That's not what I meant. I am questioning the article's notability. I don't believe the service is notable enough to warrant an article. This is illustrated by the fact that the service can be adequately covered in a section on another article. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 07:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment To the people who suggest expanding the article, what else could possibly be added? Qore does not do reviews, so there's no editorial staff or review philosophy sections. There can be no history section as it's brand new etc etc.... there is not enough content that could be added at the moment to justify it's own article. SeanMooney (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• A short article is still an article. Once the question of notability is decided the length of the article is essentially irrelevant. Not every article can be several pages long. Regardless, the obvious avenue of expansion is what other people think about the show, therefore reviews about the the success/failure/entertainment-value of Sony's venture are relevant here [16], [17], [18]. It's also an early implementation in terms of the technology as, arguably, a new media distribution format launching on an existing, highly successful platform, the PlayStation [19]. There are also corporate implications in terms of income and advertising dollars generated [20], as well as the reaction of PlayStation owners [21]. I would suggest that these references alone should be more than sufficient, per WP:Web, to support the retention of this as a stand-alone article. Debate 木 08:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• We shouldn't have an article based on the assumption that the service will become more notable at some point in the future. The initial reception of the service is reported in the PlayStation Store article already and the other information you suggest could be included in this article isn't available yet (financial benefit, success/failure, etc). ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 09:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• There's no assumptions of future coverage here and I'm not sure how you're reading that into my comments above, which make no such claims. Indeed, all of the links already discuss these matters, in some cases in quite a bit of detail, such as "Sony, Future U.S. Take Advertisers To The Qore" which discusses the advertising model, target demographics, initial sales, etc. Per WP:WEB, "web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria ... the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." The links provided above all present analysis of the program far beyond that of simply announcing the program's launch and are more by themselves than many other similar articles have had, and survived, when discussed at AFD. Regardless, the links provided above are not the only ones available, they were simply a selection based on a cursory search. Debate 木 09:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Let me suggest something.... Copy and paste the article in Playstation Store and put it here... :P BAM! PROBLEM SOLVED!

Untraceable2U (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The solution has been suggested above (ie merge), but it's a content issue and therefore AFD is not the best place for that discussion. Merger issues are best resolved on the article's talk pages via the process described in WP:Merge. Debate 木 09:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• keep: there is enough bullshit in wikipedia anyway, one more or less is harmless. Cliché Online (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Duriez

Mike Duriez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can find evidence that this person exists but no reliable sources (or any unreliable ones for that matter) to back up claims of notability enough to meet WP:BIO. [22] [23] [24] nancy ^(talk) 14:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. According to the article, the subject was a professor University of Edinburgh, but there does not seem to be substantial evidence of passing either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. I checked to see if spelling the first name as "Michael" rather than "Mike" changes any google results but that does not seem to be the case. A plain Google search for "Mike Duriez" gives just 5 hits[25], and for "Michael Duriez" 55 hits[26] that appear to be false positives. Similarly, in GoogleScholar one gets very little for either spelling [27][28] and the same for GoogleBooks[29][30]. Appears to fail both WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• delete fails WP:V, indistinguishable from hoax. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Duriez is referred to as a "tutor" in the Ptolemy Dean bio (User:PtolemyDean is the creator of the Mike Duriez bio). The addition of Duriez to the Dean bio was by User:Obscure items some of whose edits to that article have been reverted as vandalism, e.g. [31], others are clearly not serious [32] [33], note resemblance of these edits to User:PtolemyDean's [34]. I think this Bio is a hoax, and extension of vandalism/joke edit BSing on Ptolemy Dean.

• Delete per above reasoning. Professors should have plenty of RS documentation. Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trevelino/Keller Communications Group

Trevelino/Keller Communications Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Gsearch (and gnews) give lots of press releases, but nothing in the first several pages of hits showing notability. WP:COI issues as well. Contested prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Normally I'd say stubify and keep, but given the clear intention to to advertise plus very dubious notability it should go. 9Nak (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete Mild marginal notability can be detected, but the article reads too much like an advertisement. --Ecoleetage (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, strongly. Yet another public relations firm that wants a Wikipedia article about itself, because Wikipedia articles are free publicity. Very likely conflict of interest; article was started by User:TKCG. Only references are to blogs and directories at PRWeek, some kind of Web based trade publication. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SpinetiX HMP100

SpinetiX HMP100 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advertising for a commercial product. The product doesn't seem to be notable enough to deserve an article. This page is referenced only in Scalable Vector Graphics, also apparently for advertising purposes. Hajoma (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - I don't get quite as much of an ad-vibe from it, but it definitely doesn't demonstrate any notability. umrguy42 21:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Urban Archiving

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

Fails WP:N. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. An invented sport only a few months old. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Made-up "sport" consisting of standing/posing. 9 Google hits, and none of them refer to this. No indication anybody but the inventors know or care about this whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete "Sport" created this year, no claim of notability in article, serious lack of ghits or gnews hits.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable newly invented sport. JIP | Talk 18:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete A clear cut thing made up one day, doesn't even attempt a claim at notability, could probably have been a speedy. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bands4boobs

Bands4boobs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable charities operating only in Stourbridge and Coventry, England. Raised a non-notable (it terms of wikipedia) amount of money. Only referenced by self published source. SGGH ^speak! 13:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails the most general criteria: WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Notability is not confirmed. --Ecoleetage (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable charity event, and I'm sure they don't even show any boobs anyway. =) JIP | Talk 18:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Beale

Mark Beale (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability. The references for this article do not qualify as WP:RS as most are simply derived from press releases or interviews with the subject. This article fails WP:RS and WP:N.

1. The first ref is an interview which would qualify as a primary source.
2. The second ref mentions the subject in passing (Mark Beale, general manager of the Port Elizabeth-based WWP (World Wrestling Professional) and “As a PE-based company we want to show the people of SA that local is lekker,” said Beale).
3. The third ref only says "Mark Beale for Alkebulan" about the subject.
4. The fourth ref only gives a quote (“The newly-crowned champion requested the sixth edition to channel reconciliation and peace world-wide and Niger Delta in particular. It is therefore worthy of note that the championship must be held within the speculated six months, as stated in WWP title policy,” Mark Beale, CEO WWP stated).
5. The fifth ref is subscription only (You have selected an article from the AllAfrica archive, which requires a subscription).
6. The sixth mentions him once (The Chief Executive Officer and chairman of the world body, Mark Beale) and is mainly a bunch of kayfabe quotes.
7. The final ref again only mentions him once (Chief Executive Office of the WWP based in Port Elizabeth, South Africa, Mark Beale,).

There are no credible reliable sources from third parties which can establish the notability of this subject. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Darrenhusted (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Darrenhusted (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to World Wrestling Professionals#Other_On-Air_Talent. The background of the show co-creator is interesting detail there, but the notability for a separate entry doesn't seem to be there. 9Nak (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BCA Illustrated

BCA Illustrated (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable website SGGH ^speak! 13:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, unless sourcing added to show why this is more notable than other building code websites.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 13:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable commercial subscription website with no showing of either notability or broad appeal to the general public. The building code itself is probably worthy of an article; not this online edition. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete utterly non-notable. Could easily have been speedied as A7 web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] B.P. Road

B.P. Road (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable street SGGH ^speak! 13:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of information why this street is notable.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 13:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral though there is lack of information about this road, this is a notable road in major parts of india and has several major business establishments. The article if improved within the stipulated time can have its place on Wikipedia else there is no other choice but to delete this until there is proper citations and information regarding the road. Kalivd (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Deleteper SarekofVulcan, this article has had more than enough time to get attribution of notability.FelisLeo^Talk! 14:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jacob Sanders

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

First AfD was in 2005 second was in 2006 and the result was delete, this article has not gained any additional notability since then. Per the precedent set with all recent deletions of losing candidates and local councillors Darrenhusted (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Darrenhusted (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Darrenhusted (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or maybe merge/redirect to his father Larry Sanders. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick (SpongeBob SquarePants)

Patrick (SpongeBob SquarePants) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable enough in and of itself. Plenty of content already at Patrick_Star#Patrick_Star Ged UK (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The characters of Lost (TV series), Desperate Housewives, and numerous other TV shows have pages; the characters of novels (The Lord of the Rings, A Series of Unfortunate Events, etc., etc.) have pages; the characters of radio programs (Adventures in Odyssey, The Lone Ranger, etc.) have pages; how is this less encyclopedic? — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 10:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Because they haven't been cleaned up yet, and/or because they already demonstrate notability and/or could easily demonstrate notability. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - Note to The Man in Question - per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS other stuff exists shouldn't be used as reason for deletion or for keeping articles. In this case though Patrick is a main character of the show appearing in a majority of episodes I can think of and I think probably qualifies as notable because of that. The article does need cleanup and it needs some reliable 3rd party sourcing from somewhere but, isn't an outright delete. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Hard keep: notable enough for its own article. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Article consists solely of plot details, is wholly lacking reliable sourcing, with no evidence of notability. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Patrick is a notable character in his own right. --Ecoleetage (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to the list of characters page. As an editor who's tried expanding the SpongeBob characters article, I've found that there's not really enough sources out there to justify a separate article at this point. Same for the Squidward article. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep As probably the second most important character in the very popular TV series, I do not believe it should be deleted. --Hamster X (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per pd_THOR. It fails WP:N, and is unsourced. GreenJoe 15:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notable popular culture character. Even a quick Google News and Books search shows an absolute tidal wave of potential sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect Patrick Star was redirected to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters in December 2007, and starting a new article to circumvent redirection is not the solution (I assume this wasn't done maliciously). The character is already described in detail at the LoC, and the article should not be recreated as a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR. Redirection or deletion will serve until then. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Still no reliable sources about the article topic to pass WP:NOTE (or WP:FICT if you will). – sgeureka ^t•c 02:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• As noted by sgeureka, the main Patrick article was redirected months ago. This should be speedily closed, and any attempts to bring the Patrick article back be discussed on that talk page, not here. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect - When Patrick Star was redirected, it was protected to stop recreation without out-of-universe notability. The new article, Patrick (SpongeBob SquarePants), whether by accident or design, circumvents this discussion. Oh, and I see no indication of real world notability either. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep He is a main character in a hit show, it does not need to be redirected ethier, he is his own character. — Mike T Boss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC) (UTC).
• Speedy keep. This is not an occasionally recurring character but the main character's best friend and a major, notable character in his own right. I admit to watching the show every so often and I have never seen an episode without Patrick. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not a speedy keep reason. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep he is the a main character on the show. article passes WP:FICT as it is covered in reliable sources Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 00:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh? And which ones would those be? seresin ( ¡? ) 05:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: FWIW, a Google search of "Patrick Star" turns up more than 13,000,000 Google hits. He has verifiable third-party references, he is a major character on a major television presentation, seems to pass WP:FICT (after an admittedly cursory glance) and, thankfully, is not a Pokemon, on which we seem to have articles by the truckload. Ditto characters in every anime and manga on the planet. If this were one of the secondary or tertiary characters, I'd agree that a redirect is in order. This character is in every episode I have ever seen. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Claiming there are reliable, third-party sources that grant notability is not the same as providing them. If this character is as integral and notable as you so claim, these sources should be bountiful. Articles need out of universe notability, not in universe notability to remain as an article. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

With thirteen million Googles, that shouldn't be too much of a problem.  :) I'll add a couple. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, including Nickelodeon's sites for North America and Asia, an elaborate fansite at [35] and even an Amazon.com link to a Beanie Baby version of the character. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: 8,320,000 Google image hits and was co-star (no pun intended) of a major motion picture as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I believe it meets notability requirements.Oroso (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per above. especially with the reliable sources recently added. Ben1283 (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • And I removed most of these "reliable" sources again as they are not reliable at all (see edit summary). – sgeureka ^t•c 18:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Some of the ones you removed were not reliable sources, but I re-added a couple that are Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 21:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Agreed <Baseballfan789 (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Per WP:EL, Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. This clearly refers to "Patrickstar.org, an unofficial fansite", which hosts copyrighted videos (and "unofficial fansite" just screams unreliable, by the way). Why you re-added the voice actor's imdb page to the EL setion is not apparent to me, as it just appears to WP:GAME the system by asserting that this has any relevance in the character's notability (which is not the case). But I won't edit-war. The closing admin will either read this reply and see my point, or he won't (in which case the article will remain notability-tagged and be AfDed again in a few months). – sgeureka ^t•c 21:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment if the article is kept, the content should be moved to Patrick Star (which is currently a redirect to the character list) per Wikipedia naming conventions Ben1283 (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Good idea. As for the sources, a couple of them were somewhat random. I thought an elaborate fansite would be a good third-party source, but my apologies if it wasn't. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

comment I think the issue with those third party sites was simply that they referred straight back to wikipedia, thus creating a useless circular reference

• Redirect. Without sources or out-of-universe info, there's no need for a separate article. Mr. Absurd (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. The character doesn't have his own TV series or a series of theatrical shorts like a Warner Brothers or Disney character, but he is an integral part of the storylines and has been for nearly a decade. By comparison, Warner's Goofy Gophers were featured in a grand total of only nine theatrical shorts...and they have an article. Deservedly so, I might add. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Falevai

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

No assertion of notability Ged UK (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, a real, verifiable, inhabited location. No assertion of notability is not in itself a sufficient reason for deletion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC).
• Keep - Places are automatically notable. This article lists a source as well. TN‑X-Man 11:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, settlements are inherently notable, per WP:NPT -- Ratarsed (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep All geographical locations are notable. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, real places verified to exist are inherently notable. JIP | Talk 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Settlements are inherently notable, and this one certainly exists[36][37][38]. It'd be good if the confusion regarding the name of the island where the village is located was also clarified. Is it Kapa/Kapu, Falevai or both[39]?

[edit] La piccola banda

La piccola banda (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Had a look on google, and can't find anything that would indicate that this is likely to change Ged UK (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Tentative keep -- this article says it's the 12th musical this team has put together.

  "La Piccola Banda" ist das zwölfte Stück, das die Autoren extra für Musikschüler geschrieben haben, "weil wir für unsere Schüler und Chorkinder keine geeigneten Stücke für ein Musiktheater gefunden haben", erzählte König, der selber Leiter einer Musikschule ist. -- "La Piccola Banda" is the twelfth piece which the authors wrote specially for music pupils, "because we have found for our pupils and choir children no suitable pieces for a concert hall" , said König, himself a director of a school of music.

--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 13:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amaya School of Home and Industries

Amaya School of Home and Industries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not assert notability. SGGH ^speak! 09:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Tagged it for speedy deletion as an article without enough context. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy tag removed. The article stated what the subject is (a high school) and where it its (Tanza, Cavite). I've edited for clarity, but it was an easy enough problem to fix. Also, please note that the nominator removed "irrelevant" content before nominating for AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I have added back some content that is plainly relevant. This should have been cleaned up and not removed. I have also verified the status of the school. TerriersFan (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - this is notable not only as a high school but by virtue of the organisational arrangements. We need to be wary of systemic bias. Philippines' schools rarely have a presence on the internet so we need to rely on local sourcing which we should be encouraging not deleting stubs. TerriersFan (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability. High schools are not considered automatically notable (there was no consensus on this at the draft WP:SCHOOL), so there should not be a presumption that enough reliable sources can be found to meet WP:N. If these sources can be found offline in the future someone can re-create the article then. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - which is precisely how we do not deal with stubs. We have stubs because existing articles attract editors whereas the concept of keeping articles off Wikipedia until they are fully developed is fatally flawed since it rarely happens. TerriersFan (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• keep although technically High schools aren't automatically notable, in practice they are--we have accepted every one brought here for a long time now. Experience shows there is always something to say, and sources as well. I wasnt altogether happy with accepting this rule at first myself, but it seems the practical course. DGG (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mott (a joke)

Mott (a joke) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism. No reliable sources asserting notability or even existence has been provided. Mattinbgn\^talk 08:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I'd have thought it was a speedy candidate under context even `Ged UK (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think it is clear what the meaning is. I did look for a reason to speedy it and couldn't find one. I PRODded it and it was removed without comment or improvement. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Speedy if possible. Its unverifiable and gibberish--certainly doesn't merit space for a Wikipedia article. Artene50 (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if WP:NEO doesn't apply, WP:NOTDICDEF still does. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Merge This is certainly not notable enough to merit its own article. Perhaps if it could be sourced it might have merit as a subparagraph in another article, but I am not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HatlessAtlas (talk • contribs) 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing here but a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't seem to be in use. No google hits for "mott a joke", "mott the joke", or "mott that joke". My guess is this was created to harass someone named Mott. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Move to Urban Dictionary Keepscases (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable neologism, and Wikipedia isn't even a dictionary. JIP | Talk 18:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This phrase seems to be not in use. MahasonaLK (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Mott To borrow a non-notable neologism. --Ecoleetage (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Swiftfuel

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

Google search shows 93 ghits [40], but no significant coverage in reliable sources, google books shows no ghit [41]. Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Does it fail WP:RS? The PBS article is written by Robert_X._Cringely, who has a column with PBS and other tech websites, as well as having written for "The New York Times, Newsweek, Forbes...". Also, additional articles are now linked in the external links.

It is hard to find more details on the manufacture process and other reliable information on swiftfuel right now, but I think more press will cover it soon, especially since Slashdot just put it on their frontpage. The Swift Enterprises company website is down because of the Slashdot effect, which is why many details aren't here yet.

The first major press release was on June 9th, I think there will be a lot more over the next few weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetpeach (talk • contribs) 08:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete. The company and its product may well become notable in future, but inclusion now when press releases and news coverage are just beginning seems like self-promotion. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I heard about the stuff and came hear looking for information that was not in the company press release. The article can be improved, but I would give it a chance. Xlation (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep This is an emerging issue, and a new product. Google yielded 1400+ hits. Many of them are press releases. I would reopen this one in about a month. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep Notability is confirmed, but the article needs a good rewrite. --Ecoleetage (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Lacking reliable sources is a terrible reason to delete an article, but a great reason to find and add reliable sources! With the recent press, lots of people will want to know whether SwiftFuel can live up to the hype. We need more information about this, not less! OldMan (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep I came here looking for information on this precisely because of today's reference in a significant media outlet. Ergo, there should be an article on it here. Carboncopy (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep There should be an article. Here is where people come to find more information than is in a magazine article. @fella that said 'Delete', the article just needs to be non-biased. --Theeldest (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete From the little I've read, it sounds likely that SwiftFuel is an ethanol-butanol mix. Until the makers either put up a formula or a patent, this trademark is nothing more than hype, and not deserving of its own article. 24.19.238.74 (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

: New Article/Merge It may be more beneficial to start a new article for 'Drop-in Fuel replacements' or 'Gasoline alternatives'. Gas prices are forcing innovation of new fuels. There are some already: SwiftFuel, Butanol, Vegetable Oil, etc, etc. I doubt that there is going to be much more information available on each of these in the near future (probably not enough for full articles on each). However, one article with sections for each may be more plausible. --Theeldest (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Please only !vote once. --Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep There is a lot of hype right now and people want a place to read up on the product. If no useful information is added after a month the article should be merged into a list with other alternative fuels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConstableBrew (talk • contribs) 19:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep This article has very little content, but if it is deleted, that goes to zero. Right now, there are very few sources of information, or even places to go find information, about this topic. If this article is abandoned, it is akin to abandoning the arena to marketing interests. However, if more information is not forthcoming about this topic, I will change my mind, and my position. NReitzel (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but clean up and source. Just notable enough for inclusion. --Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep SwiftFuel is a drop in replacement for aviation fuel and has no ethanol in it. Regardless, an article is a good idea. The press has picked up this company and I feel we're going to learn more and more about it and it's products in a very short period of time. --Silverhand^Talk 21:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as a repository for additional information as it becomes availalbe--be that either a details of the process, or damning of the hype. In either case people come to Wikipedia for answers, just as I did. KevAvatar (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, expand and improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.54.227 (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This page will grow fast as info trickles out. We've only had 7 days for people to start asking questions. Emteeoh (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This information is critical to aviation interests currently in crisis because outside the US, aviation gasoline availability is evaporating. In developing countries where NGOs use light aircraft for mercy/relief work avgas is often unavailable and has to be shipped in at a cost of over $20 USD/gallon ($6/l) Swiftfuel is not a phantom or theoretical fuel; the company has Youtube videos

of tests using this fuel as a transparent replacement. Speaking as a business pilot and certificated flight instructor, the prospect of a lead-free 104 octane, low-emissions, zero-carbon fuel that provides up to 20% improvement in specific fuel consumption/range is crucial information. as many aviation people as possible need to know about this product and its future potential. Lastly, this is an emerging technology; what better venue to be a clearinghouse for information than Wiki? Voicewr 01:38, 14 June 2008 (PDT)

[edit] Jonathan Rietti

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

Merge and Redirect to the Gateways article because he has been its leading lecturer almost since its founding and it his been his base and "claim to fame" so that this article not be a violation of Wikipedia:Content forking. Also fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) as a serious rabbi. Also seems to be a violation WP:NOTADVERTISING. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mordechai Suchard about Gateways' founder in this regard.) IZAK (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to Gateways article for above reasons. IZAK (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment if all you want is a merge and not deletion, it doesn't need to be brought to AfD. Do the merge and close this discussion. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - I contest your recommendation on the following basis:
  • Rabbi Rietti is surely a candidate for notability, and I assert that this notability is independant of his ties to Gateways. He may happen to be a senior lecturer for the organization, but his affilitation with it has merely increased public awareness of his existence; it is not the be all and end all of Rabbi Rietti. Rietti has been engaged in youth education for 22 years, both as a teacher and an administration, and is known for espousing the Montessori method of training in Jewish education. He is a noted author and lecturer throughout the continental United States and his educational and inspirational material is both studied and experiences by many thousands of individuals each year.
  • This is not an example of content forking -- Rietti existed as a noted individual prior to joining Gateways and will remain a prominent individual even after a proverbial sudden demise of Gateways, should that occur. Gateways does not exist because of Rietti and he does not exist because of Gateways. It is merely his job -- he is not his job.
  • This is not an advertisement. The fact that a link included in that article is for a website entitled Jewish Inspiration is a far cry from linking to amazon.com. The fact is that Rietti is an author and a lecturer and this website, in addition to offering opporunities for purchase of his lectures, is a collection of information about Rabbi Rietti, as well as information as to how he in involved in Gateways. As more information is included in the article as it expands, citations will be included from sources other than from the back cover of his lecture albums.
  • Serious Rabbi? -- what is this supposed to mean? Is he ingenuine and secretly promoting a different religion or stirring up rebellion? Is he a court jester rabbi? This sort of personal attack cannot be tolerated!!
  • I especially contest your method of assertion, placing what appears to be two votes for merge and redirect, which may sway others to agree with a majority consisting of two of your votes. While this may have been unintentional, removal of one of your votes is critical. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • There are no two votes by me, only one. The first is the nomination. I have not used different sigs and I never do. The second is my vote. This is not uncommon. He is an Orthodox kiruv rabbi, one of thousands like him, and at no time was it said that he is a court jester etc. Not every Aish HaTorah, Ohr Somayach and Chabad rabbi gets his own page on Wikipedia. Please assume good faith. IZAK (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Your heading + vote is misleading. Why are the words merge and redirect bolded in your "heading," and why is redirect capitalized both times? It appears suspiciously similar to how votes appear on article for deletion voting pages -- namely, in bold. Should I embolden and capitalize the word Keep every time I use the word here? Why not simply make your point with persuasive text rather than sensationalistic headings that appear as a vote?

Did I make an article for every Gateways rabbi? No. Rabbis Suchard, Rietti and Becher are giants in their field. Rabbi Suchard founded Gateways, and Rabbi Noah Weinberg, the founder of Aish, has an article. Why don't you recommend merging that? Your logic is flawed, or at least ill presented. Rabbi Rietti is an accomplished author and lecturer divorced from his involvement in Gateways. He wrote The One Minute Masmid, and has about 195 lectures currently available on tape, CD and mp3 format. He is a commonly featured speaker at parlor meetings in the northeast United States and perhaps elsewhere as well. He has advanced training in education and was a teacher/administrator for 22 years. He provides private counseling -- and this is all separate and distinct from Gateways. Did Gateways propel him to further popularity -- probably if not definitely. Is it who he is? Absolutely not! Rabbi Slifkin has an article, even though he wrote a bunch of books and one of his books in particular, The Challenge of Creation, has its own article. He is similarly not his book and his book does not define him. What exactly is the issue other than the inadequately expressed and supported one above that poorly claims that Rabbis Rietti, and Suchard, for that matter, do not merit articles merely because they work for an organization that itself possesses an article? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

DRosenbach: I appreciate your sincere concerns but you are veering off into too many tangents. Rabbis Suchard, Rietti and Becher may well deserve full blown articles at some stage, but at this time, all the information in the articles about them, indeed the few "citations" in those articles are just taken from Gateways brochures, so that if Gateways itself feels that it can combine them, and if it does not issue copious biographies of those rabbis, there is certainly no need for Wikipedia at this time to devote separate biographies for them. I am not advocating that the information be deleted and lost but that it be moved to the main Gateways article at this time, because Gateways without Rabbis Suchard, Rietti and Becher is not Gateways. Your comparisons to other noted rabbis do not add up either at this time either. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather than argue on your rather subjective points, I will argue on the more objective ones in hopes of settling this argument. I notice a turn in your focus; it is no longer notability concerns but the merit of the articles to deserve existence based on length and bredth of coverage. WP:DEL clearly states that [a]rticles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into a larger article or list. This does not apply to any of the articles in question, as there is clearly more information that exists but has just not been added to the articles yet. Suchard's article is merely 3 days old, and even Rietti's, which is several weeks old, possesses the objective quality of "expandability" - rather than insert information without proper citation and precision, the information provided about his biography is forthcoming and will be added in time. There is no violation in creating a stub for a notable person, and as it is quite evident that the consensus has gathered around a confidence in notability, what sense is there to demand a merge when it is against both policy, and in the consensus opinion so far, common sense. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

For the creator of the Gateways article it would have been wiser to put in all the comprehensive information into it first, about its founding director Rabbi Suchard and about its two leading full time employees Rabbis Rietti and Becher who work for Gateways and Rabbi Suchard. Then, as the information about them and their whole operation would have beeen expanded with more sources, separate biographies about the rabbis could be an outgrowth down the line. It makes no sense writing one article about a small institution and then creating individual articles about three of its four full time rabbis. Therefore, the current approach of writing up separate articles about the organization and three of its rabbis is redundant, even if the rabbis have a somewhat broader resume, they are presently strongly indentified with, and work exclusively for, Gateways, AFAIK. IZAK (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy close. No deletion rational given, AFD is not cleanup and it's not a merge discussion. Actually, this nomination seems rather "pointed" and very mildly disruptive as a nomination as it was started to coincide/distract from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mordechai Suchard. Nothing to delete here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep based on sources provided meeting the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

*Merge per IZAK. Bhaktivinode (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The rationale here is essentially delete and merge, which is contrary to §4(I) of the GFDL as edit histories of merged text must be preserved. Per WP:BEFORE, "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD." MrPrada (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete because -- while I'm sure he's a fine rabbi -- he's only starting to make a name for himself but he hasn't gotten there yet. Not enough coverage by useful media and nothing really notable yet for an encyclopedia. To the extent there's anything notable, it can be merged into suitable articles (e.g., as Izak suggests). Thanks. HG | Talk 08:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per rationale given by HG. Admittedly this is a marginal case but this material would probably be more appropriate at the Gateways article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect Based on the content of his biography, Rabbi Rietti doesn't seem notable at this time. Perhaps at some future time he will be notable; he should have an encyclopedia article at that time. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable religious leader. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy close. The nominator has not requested deletion. The talk page is the place to discuss merging, not AfD. If consensus can't be reached there you can ask for outside opinion at WP:RFC. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Gateways. Culturalrevival (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to the Gateways article. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] War Symbol

War Symbol (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A proposed opposite to the "V" sign for peace. No references - Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - As a neologism and a made up thing. TN‑X-Man 11:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

*Delete I would hope that the original author would return to provide an assertion of notability. Nothing related on google for either war symbol or war gesture. Granted I've never heard of it, but I cna't seem to find it either. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Table I am changing my mind per WP:BITE. This is a new account and this is that account's first article. There are multiple edits, and a note on the talk page of the user's intent. I think that the appropriate response in this case would be to point to the notability criterion and reopen this at a later date if the author fails to either produce a useable article or a reasonable starting point for one. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• I hope you're not suggesting that an obviously unacceptable article be kept around simply because the author is new, as that's absolutely apalling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Given a combination of three factors, that's exactly what I am doing. 1) The author is new, and so should be given a guidance rather than thwomping. 2) The author and the article have been on wikipedia for less than 14 hours as of this posting. Rushing to close an article with a responsive author within 24 hours without postings to the article or author's talk page is a bit premature. 3) The author appears to have been responsive to the AfD posting. However, given the length of the article and the ease of recreation, I won't shed any tears if it goes away. HatlessAtless (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable original research. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, nominator nailed it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. The creator of the symbol (Travis Walstrom) and the creator of the article (User:TWallyT09) are surely one and the same. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 15:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete 3 lines of unreferenced text, with nothing else in the article. --Hamster X (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no sources. no claim of notability. --T-rex 15:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced and by all indications unsourcable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No source, no google / yahoo hits that I could find, appears to be totally made-up. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 17:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, original research, practically made up in school one day. JIP | Talk 18:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:RS, WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This probably wasn't made up in school one day, but yet is is non-notable per all of our guidelines. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 22:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Mollica

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

Not notabile. This is a high school film teacher who happens to have known Larry David at some point. Notability is not contagious. --Selket ^Talk 05:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Selket ^Talk 05:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:BIO, non-notable as filmmaker, musician and friend of Larry David. —97198 talk 08:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The IMDB link does show Mollica was the writer for 1 film...but that is all. He's not very notable. If he had written some books, it might be different. Artene50 (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Notability is not confirmed. --Ecoleetage (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Montgomery

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

The subject is not independently notable (notability is not contagious) and no reliable sources. Perhaps merge with Rob Zombie. Selket ^Talk 05:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Rob Zombie per nom. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Romancing SaGa characters

List of Romancing SaGa characters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just a repetition of plot and character information that belongs in the Romancing SaGa article. As it asserts zero notability on its own, it should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable), Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world), and User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles#What Wikipedia is:. Plenty of reader interest and editor efforts. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 12:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I don't think this is repetition of plot from Romancing SaGa, and it is infinitely better than Romancing SaGa in terms of organizing character information. There has been consensus in the past that accepted this article as opposed to separate page on individual character. (Article was created by an admin per AfD consensus) see:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gray (Romancing SaGa)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minstrel (Romancing SaGa)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert (Romancing SaGa)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aisha (Romancing SaGa)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neidhart (Romancing SaGa)

--PeaceNT (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Character lists such as this are acceptable spinout articles to prevent the main article onthe subject from growing too large. Edward321 (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The WikiProject Video games has precise guidelines which are more specific than the generic ones. The article fails WP:VGSCOPE in particular: "A smaller article should only be split from a larger topic if the new article would itself be notable.", "A concise plot summary is appropriate to cover a notable game, character, or setting. Information beyond that is unnecessary and should be removed." A WikiProject-wide consensus is decided and agreed upon by more people than an article consensus. Besides, these previous AFDs are from 2005-2006; the guidelines were not the same at that time. Kariteh (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The articles are consistent with our policies, however, which trump the guidelines. The article actually passes WP:VGSCOPE because lists of characters are necessary and notable. There is no consensus that such articles do not meet our guidelines and more people (those creating and editing these articles plus those arguing to keep in the AfDs) actually agree that such articles are suitable for Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The article is not consistent with the policies. It fails to establish notability, and standalone lists of characters are not necessary when the information is already encyclopedically covered in the main game article. In addition to what's already covered in the main article, the list currently describes minor non-player characters and non-plot-related bosses, none of which are encyclopedic. The current list is essentially a repetition of information from the main article with trivial details added in. Kariteh (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lambda Chi Rho

Lambda Chi Rho (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This local sorority has 42 Google hits, 11 Google news hits, and 4 Google Books hits. None of these do anything towards notability (one of the Google books hits is an example in a grammar textbook, many of the Google News hits are society pages or obituaries). Prod tag removed. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable "fraternity" or "sorority". JIP | Talk 18:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ORG Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. As Rooster mentioned, none establish notability _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 21:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Carolinas

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

poorly referenced article consisting mostly of original research and of questionable notability. Last AFD resulted in keep largely because editors had heard of the term "the Carolinas" yet verifiable 3rd party references have not materialized since then. Rtphokie (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: per the message on his user page, user Mr. IP (talk · contribs) is also the IP user 65.190.89.154 (talk · contribs), which is dynamic.

• Strong keep The two states constitute a notable grouping. I would note that although the nomination knocks the article as poorly referenced, this nomination was made precisely on the occasion - within hours - that a person (myself) began the process of adding sources to the article. Further, the nominator did not respond to a message I left on his/her talkpage, choosing to delete it without a reply instead. Anyway, the article discusses a grouping of two states which is perceived to exist by the public in the same way that the American South is perceived to exist, and is very notable and common, pulling up countless Google hits. The subject is very easily referenced, and the process of referencing is underway. This seems like a particularly inauspicious time to nominate it for deletion, especially when rejecting all attempts at discussion. Therefore, I must suggest we keep this article. Mr. IP (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have left a second message on the nominator's talk page in an attempt to work this out. Mr. IP (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, I cant delete anything. This is a discussion, that may lead to a deletion but not necessarily. Please take a look at WP:AFD, which describes the process in full.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand - I've been at Wikipedia for years and participated in dozens of AFDs. What I'm wondering about is why you wouldn't respond to my notice on your page after the prod before going to AFD. The article has issues, but they aren't insurmountable. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To ensure that everyone who is interested can participate, discussion needs to happen on the article's talk page or here in this AFD, not my talk page.--

Rtphokie (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I do appreciate replies and attempts to work on an article before going to AfD. It's probably just my wiki-mentality, but I always, always want to work with people on improving an article before I go into the big ol' XfD queues. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I would note that since making this comment, I have continued to improve the article's sourcing. I would urge everyone to give this article a chance to continue getting better. Mr. IP (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment this article sat with tags expressing concerns with the lack of references for 4 months. Dont take the AFD personally, it's a discussion. If others feel that the topic is notable enough and isn't already covered sufficiently in articles like Province of Carolina and has sufficient verifable references, then the article will stay. The term is one that is used but I dont know that it's notable enough to warrent an article. Seems like a selective merge to Province of Carolina would be fine as well.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taking it personally - it's not an article I worked on until recently, so there's no WP:OWN issues here. I just don't understand why the day you would nominate it is the day I started adding refs! 65.190.89.154 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to Province of Carolina. Right now, all the article says is that Carolinians like barbecue and have a funny pet name for their state. It is a few months old. Article does not just lack references, it lacks content. Potatoswatter (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that the article could be quite useful if improved rather than deleted. "The Carolinas" is a real grouping that is regularly used in speech and thought, and many people from outside the region may be interested to understand the similarities and differences between the states in a way that is best addressed through an article on the grouping rather than the individual state articles. Further, there is precedent at The Dakotas. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete the page is a nonsense of trivia, notable information about 'the carolinas' belongs in the two state articles or the province article. MickMacNee (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Information about the geographical grouping "The Carolinas" is more appropriately held in an article of that name. There's a good bit of information unifying the two states that would have to be duplicated in the two articles, also. I feel that any issues with this article can be addressed without deleting it. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any geographical information in the article, unles you are suggesting that "The Carolinas is a term used in the United States to refer collectively to the states of North and South Carolina" is geographical information. MickMacNee (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about cultural info. The grouping is geographic and cultural. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Where is this cultural or geographic information in this article? Point it out please. I frankly have no clue from these two replies as to what your main argument is for keeping this as a separate article, when it duplicates information from the three more relevant articles, or otherwise contains trivia. MickMacNee (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep on the grounds that I don't feel the nominator's rationale goes far enough to justify renominating an article less than 2 months after it passed a previous AFD challenge. We must not keep renominating articles until a desired result occurs. If there had been no consensus, or strong indications of an improper vote due to sockpuppetry, etc (both scenarios I've seen in recent days) then fine, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. In addition, I note Mr. IP's comments that efforts are being made to improve the article.23skidoo (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the previous Afd, I'm amazed that was ever closed as a keep. The one valid opinion to keep as a distinct article was a weak keep from Mandsford (talk · contribs), on the basis it was currently rubbish but might expand. All others were basically, 'I've heard of the term', or bizarrely, citing the name of the Carolina Panthers, or merge/redirects. The existence of the article seems to me to be mere convenience, just because it is used in everyday speech when referring to both states, in the same way as The Dakotas, which is an equally poor article with some extremely weak references, that was Afd'd at the same time, and closed as keep by the same admin. Just having heard of a term is not the standard for inclusion in wikipedia as a separate article. This is exactly what disambiguation and redirection was invented for. I challenge anyone trying to improve this article to produce a source that treats this term as anything more then a mere convenience to avoid having to say "North and South Carolina", or information that cannot be included in N/S Carolina or province articles. Keeping this article just so you can compare the two states on political/social grounds is extremely pointless, and possibly even a violation of not using wikipedia to make a point. If it is a meaningfull term beyond the convenience explained above, it really can't be that hard to add some usefull content, but the length of time it has stayed in this form suggests not. MickMacNee (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mick, while I respect your opinion and the valuable context you add to the discussion with the information about the parallel Dakotas article (I didn't know the history there), I must continue to disagree. I have no idea what the situation with the Dakotas is, but the Carolinas are a distinct region within the South in the minds of many (most?) living here, and this is something that will be established with sources. What's more, the article is already significantly improved over its condition two days ago, and efforts are ongoing. I agree that a portion of the original content was OR and possibly had been intended to make some sort of point - though frankly I can't tell what point that was, so it wasn't that egregious, I don't think - but I'm coming to this article with a fresh perspective. Mr. IP (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I await these sources, and a concrete reason why any information presented doesn't belong in the other three articles. The Dakotas appears to be a carbon copy of this debate, i.e. the fact that the phrase appears in Google means its a notable concept/term/subject, rather than something a weathergirl would say to save her 3 seconds of air time. Frankly, that the term somehow 'resonates' with the local residents is somewhat irrelevant, and quite counter to the other information that goes to great lengths to assert the two states are different politically and socially. I'm seriously wondering what makes these comparisons special compared with comparisons of N/S with other neighboring states. In fact looking at what you've added so far, it either forms historical information pertaining to the historical province, or contrasts the difference between north and south, pretty pointless when there is no argument being made that there is any close connection between the two where differences become notable, giving the impression the only reason the contrasts are being made is because the states share the same name, contrary to the principle of not using an article name to make other irrelevant statements. MickMacNee (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment', the phrase doesn't resonate with locals either. In my 15 years living in North Carolina and travels in South Carolina, I've never heard a real person use the term, just corporations or weathergirls (as you say). People don't say they are from "The Carolinas" they say that they are either from North or South Carolina. You will hear "Carolina" but that refers to either North or South Carolina but not both. In collegiate athletics, each state doesn't really acknowledge the other. Sweatshirts with "Carolina" exist in each state, in North Carolina they are white on baby blue in South Carolina they are black on garnet. On occasion when you do hear the term "Carolinas", it's someone trying to sell you something. Examples: Your Carolina Ford Dealer, The Carolina Hurricanes, the Carolina Panthers. South Carolinians have no special sense of ownership for these sports teams because of the generalized "Carolina" in the name. Yes they follow the teams but it's because of proximity not naming, just like many in North and South Carolina follow the Atlanta Braves. I'd venture to say that North and South Carolina are even more different than North and South Dakota topographically, economically, historically and especially culturally. North Carolina BBQ is different than South Carolina BBQ so they really dont even share much culinarily either. Lumping them together just doesn't make sense. It makes more sense to lump North Carolina and Virginia together and South Carolina and Georgia together. (not that I'm proposing that as solution).--Rtphokie (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on the sports issue, which is why I haven't restored that section. I think it's OR and un-referenceable. However, I disagree with you strongly on the lack of similarities, the lack of subregional identification and connection, and so on. I would observe that the similarities between the states are very strong in their eastern portions, and that they decrease as one goes westward. It is precisely this complex relationship of residual connection and similarity, stemming from a shared history, that this article is needed to cover. That, and the article's continued improvement in recent days, are the primary reasons we should turn away from deletion. Mr. IP (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Our argument isn't based on the Google search which turns up countless instances of the term - it's based on the importance of illustrating the historical and cultural relationship between the two closely-connected states for the benefit of non-Americans and other outsiders. Anyone unfamiliar with the region is likely to be very curious indeed about what these two states with the same name have to do with one another, and whether they form a grouping - information that is somewhat out of place in either respective article, and can be covered easily in this one. When you add to that the fact that the two states are indeed perceived as a distinct subregion by both residents and close neighbors (and we do have articles on regional groupings and subgroupings), it makes a lot of sense to have an article about that subregion. The article about the original colony can reasonably cover the initial history, but cannot cover any of the residual ties and connections, which are just as important. That is why this article has existed for several years now, and that is why someone is bothering to significantly improve it now. The article is currently undergoing major changes - changes that started just before the deletion efforts, not after - and this is a very bad time to kill it. This article is already much better than it was two days ago, and it can be much better than that. Give it a chance - I am. Mr. IP (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, articles aren't deleted because of a lack of quality, they are deleted for a lack of notability. This article could be improved to featured article quality and could still be deleted if it's on a non-notable subject.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• I got the same impression from the previous AfD. Sometimes admins do no more than mark it as "keep" or "delete" because that's all the rules require. However, there was not a consensus to keep as-is the last time through. There has been no improvement on this article and two months is long enough to show that nobody cares enough to improve it. The Dakotas were more recently a single political entity, and share more cultural similarities today, yet that article is also very brief. For an example of a good article on a minor geographic-cultural grouping, see Pacific Northwest. North and South Carolina have fewer similarities than Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia, within a similar population in a smaller area, hence aren't all that unified. Of course, if someone can find material for an article, they should write it. There's just no evidence for that material as yet. Potatoswatter (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Now Culture, Economy and Politics sections have been added, but they highlight the longstanding differences between the states. What gives? Potatoswatter (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I found that a little odd too. Differences would be more appropriate in the individual North Carolina and South Carolina articles. Also, I see that the opening paragraph has been reworded but is essentially brief summary of Province of Carolina rather than offer anything new on the topic as it relates to this term. Though there are some good references in the historical section of [[The Carolinas}] which might improve Province of Carolina which currently has no footnotes. Also it's worth pointing out again, that timing of AFD and any improvements in the article doesn't matter, consensus on the notability of this topic does.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Where, though, would the differences and similarities between the two states be included in the respective articles, and how would the divergence between the two states since the split be included in the Province article? There's no reasonable way to include this information in any of those, so the information would simply be deleted and lost. When that happened, any outsider looking to understand the relationship between these two similarly-named states with a shared history - and the subregion that they form in American cultural geography - would have absolutely no information available to them. A better solution is to provide such information in a well-referenced article called The Carolinas, linked from the articles of both states...especially since this is a very real term and a very real grouping about which much information exists. It's going too far to delete it, especially when we all know the information will never be merged into anything. For example, while overlooking the history of this article, I saw that the Cackalacky article had been deleted and merged into it...only to have every bit of content gradually stripped away (including the last bit by yourself!) so that the encyclopedia no longer provided any information whatsoever on the term, which is relatively common. In a similar manner, any and all information that this article contains - and which this article could contain if expanded - will be lost in the process of "merge and delete", especially since there is no good vessel for it outside of this article. Deletion here is a bad idea. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• We need a separate article comparing N and S Carolina as much as S Carolina to Georgia or N Carolina to Virginia. Notable differences and events can go to Southern United States, South Atlantic States, or the historically appropriate subject. "Cackalacky" doesn't need to redirect anywhere in particular because WP:DICT. It could go to Southern United States. If it's a name for N and S alike, mention in both those articles. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's not a comparison article, though - it's an article on a subregion. As part of describing that subregion, it discusses differences between the two states. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• That is all it does do, making it a clear violation of creating an article to make a point, there is absolutely nothing here worth recording that actually documents what The Carolinas have in common (aside from obvious duplication). MickMacNee (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment According to Province of Carolina, the North and South were unified for only sixty years, ending in 1712. The split occurred because of political differences and separate capitals from the seventeenth century. It seems more likely that similarities are a more recent result of the border being settled, and no more notable than any other border. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• All the same, they were unified, they share a history, they form a subregion, and they are referred to collectively - and not just by weathergirls and such. An article discussing their relationship and the subregion that they form is useful and important, and deleting it would be a mistake. An article on the history of relations between Virginia and West Virginia would be equally useful, in my view, although putting it under The Virginias would be dubious, as such a term is not in widespread use.65.190.89.154 (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Virginia was founded in 1607 and split in 1863. That's 256/401 years vs. 60/366. The entire matter of previous unification and shared history is covered by Province of Carolina.

• (I am Mr. IP) The entire matter of previous unification is covered by that article, but not shared history. The two states have an ongoing shared history as a subregion which is not covered by that article. 65.190.92.233 (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Potatoswatter (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Consider it a disambiguation page of sorts. ;) jengod (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• That would not meet quality standards. I hope you're not seeking retribution for my present AfD nomination of your article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Glory of Christmas. Potatoswatter (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Might as well point out that this user does not seem to agree that this article is justified. Potatoswatter (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• At the same time, it's pretty much a keep vote and certainly not a delete vote. 65.190.92.233 (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's an invalid vote, we don't have 'sort of' disambiguation pages, its either a db page, or an article. MickMacNee (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Disambig it. One sentence of explanation, with links to the Province of Carolina, North Carolina and South Carolina articles. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - no valid reason for deletion --T-rex 15:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Reason is "poorly referenced article consisting mostly of original research and of questionable notability." If you disagree with that, you should validate your WP:VOTE by saying so. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• like I said no valid reason given for deletion.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep standard grouping. Plenty of sources available. DGG (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It's this kind of throwaway vote at Afd that makes this process a farce. You can see yourself from the article that use of this term as a separate concept from 'North and South Carolina' has absolutely no basis in fact or sources, but I severely doubt you even spent the time here to even appreciate that basic fact. Fly by vote tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, insulting the wrong editor, this User:DGG seems rather literate and only casts thoughtful votes. You might look at his/her edit history before you hurl this kind of insult next time. --Blechnic (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Let him talk for himself why don't you, I have been around wikipedia long enough to appreciate DGG's opinion, thank you very much. MickMacNee (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Oh, this is about something else that's making you all spit-fire angry. I didn't speak for him, but you are now. --Blechnic (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Here's the google news hits.[42] I can't even pretend to follow the reason for this AfD? --Blechnic (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Even after reading the above comments? Or is wikipedia Google 2.0? MickMacNee (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't understand your comment? --Blechnic (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Google news = Wikipedia? Yes or no? Bearing in mind, as I'm sure you have, all the previous comments about 'Carolina/s' being a manufactured sports team device with no real world meaning. MickMacNee (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Still have no idea what you're saying or asking if anything. Maybe you're just angrily ranting about me, too, because someone posted an article you don't like. Don't understand your last sentence, either. --Blechnic (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I am equally bemused by your comments. MickMacNee (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
          • And the last sentence requires you to have read this entire debate beforehand, as I have said elsewhere. If you want to understand the debate, you need to have done this. MickMacNee (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
            • "Want to understand the debate?" You're obviously infuriated that someone wrote an article you don't like. It's too silly for understanding. yawn --Blechnic (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
              • And you obviously have nothing sensible to say in this debate. MickMacNee (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
                • Someone's fighting desperately hard and personally to get rid of a fine article. All your efforts will amount to nothing, but wasted time, though. I've changed my vote to strong keep, just to make sure it's clear. --Blechnic (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Google News is irrelevant to an article on history, culture, etc. Potatoswatter (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep – Beam me up Scotty – Here we have an article that has been around since 2003 – longer than the nominator I might add – Well referenced and even inline cited from reliable – verifiable 3rd party sources – over 19,000 Google Scholar hits, as shown here [43] – well written. Hey, I can understand the nominators reasoning for this Afd, it was the Klingons doing. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I presume every single one of those Google scholar links makes no mention of North Carolina and South Carolina as distinct entities? Or perhaps, like this nonsense of an article, they actually talk about the differences between the two in respect of barbecue sauces or levels of unemployment. As before, this is an absolute nonsense of a rationale for keeping this article, which if no one has realised by now, is only a run around attempt to keep the article Cackalacky, which was rightly deleted. You're being played. MickMacNee (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    • We should delete Oregon also, because there's an article on the United States, too. Or is it we should delete Pacific Northwest because there's an article on Victoria and one on Idaho? It's not policy that regions are deleted if their subregions have articles. Not on Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia. --Blechnic (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - First, they all mention the division of North and South. However, the main thrusts of all the articles discuss the Carolina’s as one, not two separate and distinct entities. Two, I did not say every one of the articles, and for a sake of argument lets say 98% are totally bogus, were based on the Carolina’s That still leaves well over 300 Google Scholar hits. Now let us just take a look at the first page that deals with the Carolina’s in the context we are discussing in this subject. Now remember, we are just on the first page of hits. We have cites in the Ecological Society of America – Modern Philology – Smithsonian and National Academy of Sciences. To me that is impressive. Oh and by the way, none of the articles discusses barbecue sauce or unemployment. Now let us review your rational of a “…run around argument’’. I believe Cackalacky does not have a separate article here on Wikipedia! Does the term Cackalacky redirect here to the The Carolinas yes. But what does one have to do with the other? Or are you just talking to me in Klingon and pulling my leg :-). ShoesssS ^Talk 00:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just research the history of the Cackalacky article. And honestly, if you can provide any scholarly article that deals with the two states as a distinct area over and above a convenient linguistic device, then I'm all ears (look at the current article, is it anywhere near giving any information of this form?), otherwise, it just looks like you are using an extremely dumb tool to make an extremely smart point. MickMacNee (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• CommentLet me start with providing an article dealing with the “Carolinas’” as one entity, rather than two, just to satisfy your request, for just one significant citation. How about this one [44]. As you will note it is from Pediatrics an extremely well respected and verifiable medical journal. Regarding the Cackalacky piece, I still cannot see what you are driving at? Can you explain further. Thanks. Hope this helps. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an encyclopoedia, not a dictionary. I did not ask for a use of the name in a title, that frankly proves nothing beyond its use as a replacement for 'North and South Carolina', which is the exact phrase used further down the page. So if you can, please explain what the compelling reason is that pediatrics in the Carolinas 'region' is any more important than any other arbitrary region. Is there some historical or cultural reason for this, that is worthy of documenting in an encyclopoedia? Or is it not true that this is just a linguistic convenience when considering both states together. MickMacNee (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I am the user going by Mr. IP in the earlier debate. I think that what MickMacNee is referring to is the fact that I first found and began repairing this article through a search for the word "Cackalacky". That article had been deleted and redirected to The Carolinas, so I ended up there. I searched this article for the word "cackalacky" and found nothing, whereupon I checked the talkpage and saw what had happened. I went through the histories, restored much of the information from that article, added citations, and then went about repairing the rest of the article. It was around this time that the deletion nom came in. I have no strong feelings about the term "Cackalacky", as I live in the state and feel that it is a dumb (but real) nickname. I can state categorically that attempts to repair and keep this article have nothing to do with some sort of end-run around the deletion of the "Cackalacky" article. I had no prior involvement with either The Carolinas or Cackalacky, and if I were going to try to resurrect the latter, I would do so directly. Either this is a misunderstanding of my history with these articles by MickMackNee, or it is an accusation that I'm lying and am involved in a secret effort to resurrect the Cackalacky article by way of The Carolinas (which would possibly be the dumbest secret conspiracy of all time). Even if that's what he's saying, I would appreciate if he would take this up with me directly rather than by proxy. 65.190.92.196 (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, oh, I vote for the conspiracy theory! --Blechnic (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Scrolling through the list of ghits, they almost all refer to larger geographical groupings, eg "Carolinas and Tennessee," "Carolinas to Maine," etc. Almost all of them deal with ecology and use the plural term to describe wildlife ranges. That's not the subject of this article. Potatoswatter (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Taylor Bass Style

Chris Taylor Bass Style (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources exist to show notability. While searching for sources, I performed a google search which resulted in only one hit (and I bet you can figure out what that one hit is).[45] Prod removed by an editor who cleaned the article up a bit. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The article has lots of subjective WP:OR elements and is certainly not notable as Ice Cold Beer notes. Also, it is totally unverifiable. Artene50 (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:OR, WP:RS, & WP:V.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 12:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete- not notable enough to be an encyclopaedic article Kalivd (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep- there are citations out there, just gotta find them. Very notable style of bass-guitar playing. General Epitaph (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Starckdeutsch

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

made-up language, probably not of enough note for inclusion. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Not very notable. How does one verify this 5 year old article whose "language originated as a pub joke in 1972." Artene50 (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless verifiable sources provided for the language. This is hard because naturally, most of the 400 Google hits are in German. I've seen a couple of hits referring to author's "Gedichte"-- poems. This feels like a vehicle to promote his poetry. In fact I find one hit that is for a music CD. I see other hits that are more about selling CD's than writing about the language. The article on the German Wikipedia has more detail, but not better sourcing. Google Scholar gives six hits, not inspiring, but not English either. Per the article, this is a made up language used by it's creator and a few others to publish innovative poetry. Dlohcierekim 22:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Switch to Keep as notable and reliably sourced I had asked User:Dorftrottel to translate the German Google hits as my German was 30 years ago and he is pretty good at it. His reply allays any concerns I had. It is mentioned in four books by linguists. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 06:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Obviously, the man himself is notable enough. The language, by proxy and because it's been published, as well. If the whole thing started as a pub joke, that's fine, but IMO doesn't undermine notability in any way. And, if something is notable in Germany, it is also notable for wp.en: after all, the fact that this WP is in English doesn't mean it's merely there to serve Anglosaxon speaking countries. Besides, there's another thing: the German wikipedia is extremely severe when it comes to notability (even Quenya was not good enough for having its own article!). I know that doesn't prove anything, but it means at least something. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 00:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, at best a nonnotable conlang, at worst a poor joke. —Angr 14:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Poor joke or not, it is notable enough to have been mentioned by several high-profile German linguists. dorftrottel (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Mentioned in passing, perhaps, but in the sources cited I see no evidence of it being discussed by them in any detail. Still not notable enough for an encyclopedia. —Angr 20:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete still I do not find this constructed language to be particularly notable in the context of Wikipedia. JBsupreme (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• (At least weak) keep Being German, I admit to never have heard of this language. Still, de-wiki has an article about it, and another article about a seemingly notable musical group who are claimed to be known for their starckdeutsch songs. I don't know the group, and I am not a linguist, but this is at least some claim of notability. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• CommentThe references added since the nomination show that the article is verifiable, at least. However, I still don't believe that just being mentioned in a book makes you notable. I don't understand German, but I can tell that those references are not stalking about it in the depth necessary to call this notable.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete An article on Koeppel would be okay. "Starckdeutsch" however is just the title of a book of poems. It is not a technical term, let alone a literary genre. The German Wikipedia has been duped here (go and search the web for 'Lew Bronsteingussi'). --Konstock (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Olivia and Ava White

Olivia and Ava White (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a case of toddlers filling a character role with little actual acting, in tandem between them. They do not continue to act as a collective nor will they do so in the future. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as per above. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not really notable aside from their one role on Days. Pinkadelica 05:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Whether they have had 'significant roles' roles per WP:ENTERTAINER is arguable, although a regular, recurring role on Days of our Lives is a pretty good start. There's also some evidence of a fan base, but it's not large enough or "cult-ish" enough in my view to push them over the WP:BIO line. Debate 木 13:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've also reviewed the first deletion debate and in my view the keep arguments there are pretty weak, particularly those based on the Google Test, which throws up no significant, reliable sources that I can find. Debate 木 14:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Debate 木 13:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete These kids are basically extras IMO, there's no real notability there. -Toon⁰⁵ 21:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Home Alone House

Home Alone House (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not reliably sourced, not really claiming notability, not really worth an article! Privatemusings (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• DO NOT DELETE This took me time and effort to put together. All I wanted was something good, not bad. Why is it up for deletion!? This is absurd and ridiculous. Why can't someone simply edit it so it meets whatever stupid standards it should. Someone who can help me from it being deleted and someone who is more Wikipedia knowledgeable! As owner of this material, no one can simply delete it anyway without a discussion! User:Boeing757 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.103.89 (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. Sorry that your first effort is up for deletion. I'd be absolutely happy to help you get Home Alone House up to Wikipedia standards. Leave me a message at User talk:Jclemens. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Not worth an article at all. No citations or anything.Tresiden (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge material to Home Alone, perhaps after the Cast section, or in a Trivia Production Notes or special "real world" section, or perhaps to a related article if there is one (eg: The making of ~). Easy to do, merged article would not be too long, seems a natural fit. Material seems worth preserving in an appropriate article, just too trivial to Stand Alone, so to speak. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 16:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless a WP:RS can tie it to the movie. If such a source is found, Merge instead per T-dot. Jclemens (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Found a source, added it to the article. Note that in Danish the location is included in the home alone article itself, although appears to be only sourced to IMDB. There are a couple more sources for the location, but several of them look non-RS. Jclemens (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, unless sources are found, then merge to Home Alone or similar; it's not notable enough for its own article. Mr. Absurd (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to Home Alone. I say keep as a stub, because it applies to both Home Alone 1 and 2. If it's merged to HA1, then HA2 also needs a link to the subsection within HA1, and that's somwhat messy. If merged, the article should be left as a {{R with possibilities}} so that it could be expanded later if more information is found. I hate it when people want to delete short articles just because they are short. Sometimes a stub is all that's necessary to adequately describe something, and this seems to be such a case. Expand on it (and definitely reference it) if more information is found, but definitely don't delete without at least merging. --Willscrlt (Talk) 23:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Garrett, Spencer and Mitchell Gray

Garrett, Spencer and Mitchell Gray (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable: toddlers filling roles on soap operas in tandem are not notable in absence of ongoing career. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete: This is a case of toddlers filling a character role with little actual acting, in tandem between them. They do not continue to act as a collective nor will they do so in the future. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It kills me inside to say so, but it seems they satisfy notability criteria at WP:ENTERTAINER as being featured multiple times in prominent TV series. —97198 talk 08:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sonia (film)

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

No evidence that film has begun shooting (article has existed for two years now); therefore it fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when shooting can be confirmed to have already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dhun (film)

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

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation upon sourced confirmation that shooting has begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Idhu Malai Nerathu Mayakkam

Idhu Malai Nerathu Mayakkam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice to recreation upon confirmation that shooting has begun, as per guideline. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator; fails WP:NFF. Perhaps when it begins shooting. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 05:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roboticizer

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

This article was prodded for a lack of notability per WP:N. The prod tag was removed, and so the article comes to AFD. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 03:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete cruft with no real world relevance; throw in some WP:OR and you have yourself one for the junk heap. Just don't let it get roboticized. D: JuJube (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Nonsensical article with zero sources which suggests it is not WP:N It may also be WP:OR. Artene50 (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable element of fiction, and filled with WP:OR. It is also unsourced, and does not yield many google hits, either. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 05:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N (and WP:FICT etc). Is essentially just an article about plot (WP:NOT#PLOT) and the lack of sources providing real world info means that's not going to change. Bridies (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete What everyone else said.  Dylanlip  (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UEFA Euro 2008 broadcasting rights

UEFA Euro 2008 broadcasting rights (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

We have a lot of rather inconsequential sports articles, but this is a bit much. How is a list of TV stations that are broadcasting a single football tournament even remotely encyclopedic? Delete, per WP:IINFO. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with nominator - can't see how this is vaguely encyclopedic. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 13:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• The article is interesting, but I have (unfortunately) no policy from which I can present an argument, so instead I guess I'll vote to merge into Sports television broadcast contracts. ugen64 (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Natural but if the article is opted to delete, remove List of 2006 FIFA World Cup broadcasting rights also please. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 05:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Presumably you mean "neutral"....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep companies pay massive sums of money for broadcasting rights and mainstream media covers transfers of these rights. With better references and a passage about the broadcast of this year's tournament, this article will be fine. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 14:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Not all business transactions equal an encyclopedia article. Again, fundamentally, this is trivia - a list of TV stations ephemerally associated with a single sporting event. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • A lot of things on Wikipedia are considered "trivia", largest cities, three-letter country codes, etc. Doesn't make them any less notable, and a demeaning of an article as trivial is not a proper argument for deletion. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 17:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep this is actually very useful for people to find out where it is being televised in their country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.62.205 (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:USEFUL and WP:NOTDIR. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I have added a new intro to the article which makes the article no longer just a list of broadcasters. There is significant coverage in reliable sources establishing the notability of this topic with the broadcasting rights being sold in a new way for 2008 than previously. Such coverage shows that this is not just trivia or unencyclopedic but instead a valid topic. Davewild (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure, ways of doing business change - nothing prevents us from making a note of the new model here. But an exhaustive list of who's broadcasting a single event isn't really justified. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no good reason why we should not have this list as part of an article on these broadcasting rights. It does not fall into any of the sections within the WP:NOTDIR policy or the WP:IINFO policy (there is now explanatory text to provide context for the reader) that you have quoted above. There is plenty of coverage in reliable sources which establish the notability of this topic - many of the individual television deals have articles written on them as well as coverage generally on the broadcasting rights as a whole. Davewild (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of characters in Star Ocean: The Second Story

List of characters in Star Ocean: The Second Story (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of character information from the game article from which it comes mixed with trivia. It is therefore duplicative and unnnotable on its own and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. It appears to be just game guide content, along with trivia. Relevant content belongs in the main game article (if it's not there already), and leave it at that. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. A complete lack of sources. It is a long article with one source. Also is like one huge trivia(which wikipedia discourages), so I say delete.Gears Of War 14:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unless there is a good argument to merge this into the main Star Ocean article. --Ecoleetage (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It was just recently tagged requesting sources; I would give the editor more time to add them. It is certainly not a game guide. There is no information contained in the list how to play the game (i.e. press "x" at point "y" to obtain object "z") It doesn't appear to be trivia to me, but rather explaining the different characters in the game. --Pinkkeith (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable and excessive plot information. By the way, I was the one to split this article from the game article originally, but I didn't know much about the guidelines back then. Kariteh (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of black characters in videogames

List of black characters in videogames (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Unnecessary unencyclopedic list. Completely OR. Who cares if a video game character is black. The list includes Will Smith ,50 Cent and "Zombies in Resident Evil 5". All put together in a list even though that have nothing to do with each other. This is a collection of unsourced trivia.--Coasttocoast (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete needless list. JJL (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete per the well-stated reasons in the nomination. --Hnsampat (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete stupid. JuJube (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a completely useless delete vote. Going through AFDs, your votes tend to add nothing to the discussion and intend only to troll the contributors of the article. Please have at least some respect for this site's processes. SashaNein (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - per WP:NOT#INFO, silly inclusion criterion. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia isn't a trivia guide, and isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Very trivial. We might as well have List of Asian characters in video games or even List of Caucasian characters in video games. The list would be severely unmanageable. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 05:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This is pure trivia and nothing more. Artene50 (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless Tresiden (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as an pointless, indiscriminate, unsourced, and useless list. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - I think the article might fire up certain speculations and is very trivial as well. Kalivd (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Useless list. Though not to be racist but it dosent matter if a character in a video game is black unless it effects that plot of the game. Also it has no refs. Trivia is discouraged on Wikipedia and thats bassically whats this is. Nobody cares about wether a character is black, they care about the gameplay and so fourth. Also if the decisio is to keep in the end, the article should be renamed List of African American charters in video games.Gears Of War 14:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, another Wikipedian who believes that all black people are American. Plus, you know, half of the fictional characters on the list have no inferred nationality at all, or nationality to equally fictional nations. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I wouldn't say it is useless. Perhaps if it was more encylopedic like LGBT characters in video games I would support it. --Pinkkeith (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: just saw this comment now, and I fully endorse it. There's a useful, encyclopedic way to tackle this topic and LGBT characters in video games has shown us the way. Let the article's creators follow that lead. In fact, if they began to reform this list, I would change my vote to a simple rename. Randomran (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: I actually think this is an interesting topic, but this list is a totally unencyclopedic and non-notable way to tackle the topic. There's just far too many characters for a single list, and the goal of the encyclopedia is to give a concise overview of a topic rather than provide an exhaustive list. If someone wanted to instead create an article "black representation in video games", I'd support its creation. I'd even help with the research: it's out there and I've seen it. I just need to dig it up. Randomran (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I agree that it is an interesting idea for an article, but the lack of sources makes it seem too trivial. --Ecoleetage (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, indiscriminate list, borderline game guide. Seems to be made to make a point. JIP | Talk 18:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: The article may be problematic, but how about if someone create an article titled List of Nazi characters in videogames? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Let's assess this article on its merits, and not on "oh my god if we allow this what's next?" Honestly, an article about Nazis in video games would probably be decent. The list itself might get really excessive, and that's not the point. But there's probably numerous journalists and scholars who have made comment about how often Nazis are used as villains in these games. I remember reading somewhere that games tend to go over well when you can kill your enemies guilt free: zombies, aliens, robots, or Nazis. Randomran (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ulteo

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

The current version of the article was rewritten by user Getupstandup1 (talk · contribs) and is substantially different from the version which was deleted after the first AfD. Note: as per the recent Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 8#Ulteo discussion, this nomination does not promote a specific outcome. — Athaenara ✉ 01:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Extensive references turn out to be the either the distro's website, PR blurbs, or pre-release reviews. For now its J.A.L.D. in beta. Thetrick (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• What is "J.A.L.D."? — Athaenara ✉ 10:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just Another Linux Distro. They proliferate like tribbles. --Thetrick (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for clarifying. — Athaenara ✉ 14:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Sorry, but you _just don't know_ what you are talking about. Ulteo have three main products, including a full desktop that runs within a web browser, and a virtualized system that runs on Windows. So that's Just Not Another Linux Distro. Vautnavette (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The new article about Ulteo is well referenced, and balanced. Reviews have been done on software products that have been released, not only on press-releases, so I disagree with the comment abobe. Most articles about Ulteo in the specialized IT press have been are serious and documented. The number of references in Google show that Ulteo is already well known and used by many people. I think that the new article doesn't meet any Wikipedia criteria for deletion, or you have to delete most Wikipedia article about software products. Vautnavette (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC) — Vautnavette (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep I don't understand such harrassement about Ulteo! The new article meets Wikipedia criterias about references and notability. Just consider the product tests by Linux.com, Fosswire and ArtsTechnica: you get three major specialized and respected websites that have tested and reviewed some Ulteo products recently. That's only for well-known news sites because there are hundreds other websites and blogs that have reviewed or talked about the project. So what's the problem? Why would Ulteo be a problem while G.h.o.s.t or DesktopTwo (that have 10x times less Google entries than Ulteo) have their entries in Wikipedia and nobody is concerned about that? Please keep the current article: it's informative and meets Wikipedia criterias to live. Getupstandup1 (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC) — Getupstandup1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep we need an Ulteo article on Wikipedia! The new article is good, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petertribou (talk • contribs) 15:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

— Petertribou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep It has corespondents in 8 or 9 languages, seems well structured or sourced. Noting that it's a pretty dirty trick in trying to disregard oppinions because of low number of contribs pointed out at those who vote keep. --Trucizna (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• The SPA (single-purpose account) tag is not used to disregard opinions, but is used to help the closing admin. Keep in mind this is not a vote. I found this discussion because I was browsing contribs of newly created users. It is suspicious and a sign of a possible sock/meat puppet when a user is created and immediately voices an opinion in an AfD. swaq 15:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• As you just wrote, this is not a vote. Actually I don't see what's suspicious if some users are creating a wikipedia account to participate to this discussion. Or are you claiming that different accounts have been opened with the same IP address? Vautnavette (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• It is possible that they are the same person or someone who was asked to voice a certain opinion. It is also possible that several independent people just happened to come across the article immediately after it was tagged for deletion, noticed the tag, and decided to create a new account to ask to keep the article. swaq 16:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This article on Ulteo is fair and balanced. I do not see any valid reason to delete this except that someone is trying to suppress the information for their own agenda. --buswellj —Preceding comment was added at 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

— buswellj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Articles are not kept for being "fair and balanced", they must show notability. swaq 16:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, and Ulteo meets Wikipedia criterias for notability Vautnavette (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• I dunno how you can say that Ulteo is not notable, if Ulteo is not notable, then neither is rPath! Here are some links, none of these are PR links, you have major sites reporting on and discussing Ulteo. This is nuts, next you guys will be wanting to burn books, get off the power trip!!
• http://polishlinux.org/linux/ulteo/ulteo-my-digital-life-made-simple/
• http://www.linux.com/feature/125891
• http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/29/1445205&from=rss
• http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ulteo
• http://www.downloadsquad.com/2008/05/20/flipping-the-linux-switch-switching-literally-with-ulteo-virt/
• http://fosswire.com/2008/03/28/ulteo-application-system-beta-1-the-fosswire-review/
• http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9832336-7.html
• http://blogs.eweek.com/brooks/content/office/openoffice_on_ulteo_in_pictures.html
• http://wddc.blogspot.com/2007/12/would-ulteo-help-openoffice-to-beat-ms.html
• http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1841 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buswellj (talk • contribs) 16:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The article still has WP:RS issues. By the above tagged users there is a visible conflict of interest here. Part of this is that many of the references fall into the self published areas. The software is just not notable. I watch the Web desktop which is how I got to this article. Other editors and myself are trying to go though the list (slowly but surely) to make sure that all the noted articles are following the Wiki policies. In short, this article is about the same not notable software and has the same source issues as the last one.--Pmedema (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Compared to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPath this wikipedia article, the Ulteo article has a lot more valid references. So how come the rPath article isn't up for deletion, when it is taking precedence over an actual (far more notable) rpath linking computer term???? Some bias / motive here against Ulteo??? Wikipedia is a reference, Ulteo is obviously a notable and becoming more notable on a daily basis solution, especially with highly visible open source people like Gael Duval behind the project!. I think you need to explain why you think its not notable?
• http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/ulteo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buswellj (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment It looks like the WP:RS issues have been taken care of. Unfortunately, I still feel that Ulteo is not notable. Also, please be carefull with the other stuff exists argument. --Pmedema (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I disagree with you. I think that all the discussions here, the Ulteo article and new entries, have shown that there are many independent and recognized websites that have tested Ulteo in a disinterested perspective (ie they don't have any link with the Ulteo project itself). Additionally, new links show interest from press and Ulteo users activity in several countries in the world, including the USA, European countries, and a quick search shows other countries, including China and Russia. This clearly shows that Ulteo is now notable software. Petertribou (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral Delete I have gone through every reference on the Ulteo article. In order to be notable, the article must have multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Every single source is at least some sort of technology site, with most being blogs and/or more specific to open source/linux.

• ulteo.com - not independent
• distrowatch.com - not significant coverage, not independent (linux site)
• linux.com - not independent (linux site)
• fosswire.com - self-published (blog), not independent (open source site)
• downloadsquad.com - self-published (blog), semi-independent (technology)
• polishlinux.org - self-published (blog), not independent (linux)
• arstechnica.com - low coverage (more on OpenOffice than Ulteo), semi-independent (technology)
• news.cnet.com - blog, not significant coverage (short), semi-independent (technology)
• ghacks.com - self-published (blog), semi-independent (technology)
• slashdot.org - not significant coverage (summary of other articles), semi-independent (technology)
• virtualization.com - not significant coverage (short), self-published (blog), not independent (Linux/Open source)
• linux.sys-con.com - not independent (linux)
• computeractive.co.uk - not significant coverage (brief summary), semi-independent (technology)
• crn.com - semi-independent (technology)
• channelregister.co.ux - not significant coverage (mentions Ulteo in passing), semi-independent (technology)
• blogsearch.google.com - not a source

swaq 17:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Eh, are you on some kind of power trip? Based on your logic, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_rooney this article on Wayne Rooney (famous football player) isn't notable because all the references are by SPORTS MEDIA! You can't say that the open source / IT media sites are not independent sources because they are linux sites!! Same goes (using your logic of classification above), that this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Spears is invalid, because the references are all ENTERTAINMENT MEDIA sites, and by your logic, not independent! I think you have the wrong idea of what independent means, should be (via common sense), not an Ulteo, or Ulteo employee's site. But ruling out technology meia for a technology article is just biased! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buswellj (talk • contribs) 17:14, June 12, 2008 (UTC)

• "An independent source is a source which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective" (Wikipedia:Independent sources, see also Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Regarding your Wayne Rooney and Britney Spears arguments, I would recommend reading the "Individual merit" section of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. swaq 17:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• The individual merit section doesn't apply, you might want to re-read it yourself. It doesn't apply because I wasn't commenting on the content of the other articles themselves but on the logic being used to disregard the resources used to substantiate the Ulteo article. The logic is flawed. My point was that if you disregard technology media for technology articles, the same would apply for sports references to sports related articles, which is absurd. You want a reference in a Home and Gardening magazine on Ulteo? Its a bit odd too that nobody has mentioned why the rPath article isn't up for deletion?? It being less notable and having less references?? Buswellj (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• You are cherry picking the definitions of independent source to fit your argument. The full text states : An independent source is a source which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective. For example, in the case of a website, an independent source would be newspaper coverage of the site rather than the site itself; for a recording artist, an independent source would be a review of the artist rather than album sleeve notes or a press release. This is not to disregard the role such primary source material can play in writing an article, but serves to ensure an article can be written from a balanced viewpoint. It also ensures articles can catalogue a topic's worth, its role and achievements within society, rather than offering a directory listing. The idea is that articles which don't reference outside sources be placed in clean-up via an independent sources template, and if there ultimately prove to be no independent sources, the article may be listed for deletion."
• This description indicates that an independent source would be a third party coverage of Ulteo, and not a press release, the site itself or an employee. This *INVALIDATES* almost all of your "not independent" comments above, giving Ulteo plenty of valid references. Lets play with some common sense here. rPath article though isn't valid by this . Buswellj (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Feel free to AfD rPath. swaq 18:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Will do. Based on your logic we can do the same for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_supra right? All the references there are from either toyota or car focused sources (not independent by your logic). Right?? Buswellj (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Even if you include the ones I listed as "semi-independent" (the technology ones), there is only one (crn.com) that doesn't fail the other tests (reliable, significant coverage). The notability guidelines call for multiple independent reliable sources. swaq 18:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think I've already shown your logic is very flawed. All of the references with the exception of ulteo.com are valid ones, you are again cherry picking. Dunno what your beef is with Ulteo, but if this article gets deleted the Toyota Supra one needs to go too. Which we both know is absurd. Buswellj (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• John, I think you are misinterpreting my logic. Being independent is only part of a reference that shows notability. The ones I listed as semi-independent are a bit of a gray area but I wouldn't say they don't qualify as being independent. Others fail significant coverage and being reliable (personal blogs are not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards), with the exception of the crn.com one. I do not have a beef with Ulteo. I hadn't heard of it until today. I am an avid open-source user and have used several different Linux distributions, so I have nothing against Linux or open source either. Just out of curiosity, why did you pick the Supra article to mention? swaq 18:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Your logic is *VERY CLEAR* I'm not misinterpreting it at all. Above you have listed all the various references. Beside Linux.com (feature article by a journalist), you have not independent. You clearly have this logic of linux / open source site equals not independent. This logic is WRONG per the plain example in Wikipedia's own guidelines. If it were correct, then all the Toyota Supra references are NOT independent, and that article should be AfD'd. So if you still think Ulteo article should be deleted on that logic, you should submit the AfD for Toyota Supra. You won't because your logic makes no sense. All of those references are fine, and Ulteo is notable (not just by independent references, but my complaint is that you have said Linux media sources are not independent, which would be like me saying Car and Driver is not an independent source for information on cars!!). Thats nonsense. The problem here is you have misinterpreted the meaning of disinterested perspective, read the Wikipedia link you posted, check the example, then re-example each of the Ulteo sources. You will see that they are by independent third parties, and are not reprints of PRs or documentation. I'm sure we both have better things to be doing here, so please indicate whats wrong with the Linux.com article. Buswellj (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have removed your comments you mixed in with mine. Please discuss each link in your own comments to make it clear who is saying what and for readability purposes. I also don't appreciate the personal attack. See my reply to MahasonaLK below on my reasoning for my logic on why I don't think linux/open source sites are independent. You obviously have some personal agenda so I won't argue any further with you. swaq 22:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• My question to you, Swaq, is: what do you have against the Ulteo project? What you are writing is really quite odd. I mean: Ulteo is a project that 1) has been supported by a number of users for a long time 2) has released several products in the past 6 months that catched much attention and tests from IT press 3) gets 600,000 entries in Google 4) has entries in other languages (Ulteo is global, I can even find articles in Russian and Chinese about it!). So where's the problem about notability? Just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_OS - nobody complains about it. You don't. And it's just a very early-stage project. Vautnavette (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have nothing against the Ulteo project, as I have already stated. 1) Number of users does not necessarily make something notable. 2) I'd like to see another independent reliable source or two with some significant coverage, something other than blogs. 3) Number of Google hits does not make something notable, see Google test. 4) I'm not sure what the other language Wikipedias use for inclusion criteria. However we can't just say that Wikipedia in X language has it so Wikipedia in Y language should too, that can quickly become a circular argument. Browser OS has a "may not meet the general notability guideline" tag at the top of it, so I don't see how you are saying no one is complaining about it. Each article should be considered against the guidelines/policies, and not compared to what other articles exist, see: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. I'd like to state again that I have nothing against Ulteo. It seems like a neat little OS, and I'd happily change my mind if I saw some more reliable sources on it. swaq 20:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Swaq wrote: "blogsearch.google.com - not a source": frankly, do you want me to copy-paste all the _independant_ entries from blogsearch.google.com to the Ulteo article on Wikipedia? Vautnavette (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• A list of websites is not really a source. I doubt you will find many, if any, non self-published articles using a blog search. swaq 20:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Reading all your comments, I understand that you have nothing against the "candidate for deletion" article, but you are just against an article about Ulteo in Wikipedia. So you would vote for deletion for any article about Ulteo because you think that it's not a notable project. At the same time, when you answer John about the "Supra" article you are arguing that there are "semi-independant" sources that can be considered as independent sources (quote: "The ones I listed as semi-independent are a bit of a gray area but I wouldn't say they don't qualify as being independent.") So I understand that when you are supporting a project, you have not the same way of thinking about Wikipedia guidelines. But when reading again Wikipedia's definition of notability, I understand that Ulteo meets each of them, or we don't understand things the same way. So please give the new Ulteo article a chance to live. Even if it's not perfect, it will improve with time, for sure. Vautnavette (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Swaq : Here is another independant reliable source : [46]. By the way, did you read whole arstechnica.com coverage? It's not about "openoffice.org", it's about "online openoffice.org". Regarding your "not independent - linux" argument, when wikipedia guidelines say "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable", subject here is "ulteo", not "linux". MahasonaLK (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link, that looks fine. I did read the whole arstechnica.com article, and I did notice that it was talking about online openoffice.org. However the subject in question is Ulteo, not particular aspect of it, so I don't think that can qualify for establishing notability. Still a good source though. My opinion that a linux site is not independent is because I think they are still too close to the subject and are likely to mention almost every distribution, whether notable or not. I'm changing my vote to neutral. swaq 22:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Swaq: I would suggest you refrain from engaging in reviews of Open Source, Technology or Linux related articles on Wikipedia. You clearly have some bias against open source focused media outlets. Your logic can be applied to Edmunds.com, or Car and Driver about cars. These sites are going to look, review and cover what they feel is of interest and notable to their readers. Just because a media outlet is focused on Open Source does not make it more or less a resource. I apologize if making comments about the Toyota Supra felt like a personal attack, I was simply putting things into a perspective you might easily understand. Buswellj (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have nothing against open source. I use open source software almost exclusively at home. I did not say that open-source/linux sites are not valid references, only that they are questionable as independent, disinterested sources. I was not referring to your comments about the Supra as a personal attack, and I don't understand why you think I care so much about that article. I was specifically referring to this edit where you said "this guy is on crack". swaq 15:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The article is good and informative. And I think that Ulteo is a notable project according to what I can read on the web (besides that I know it!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.122.60.126 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note I have added (to the Ulteo article) several new links to Ulteo tests, and added an "Interview" section. I hope it's accurate to post that here. Vautnavette (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment OHHHHhh... that's why there are so many WP:SPA's around. I feel that WP:NOSOLICIT has been violated. [47] I had to translate some. There has been solicitation from the www.Ulteo.com website forums. --Pmedema (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think the dates look quite right. -- Swerdnaneb 17:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment you don't like Ulteo and will try _anything_ to get the article deleted, right? (check what you are writing about though: the thread is date April, 4th) Vautnavette (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny

Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is essentially a description of a flash animation that fails to establish any real-world notability and instead relies on unreferenced trivia--the fact that I was able to find only one news source online speaks volumes.

Truth be told, I was halfway tempted to speedy the article based on its current state and the fact that the last two discussions (the most recent of which was over a year ago) ended with no consensus based on WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, but since other options exist (such as redirecting or merging to Neil Cicierega), I thought it best to bring it here for discussion. jonny-mt 01:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. The article does appear to cite some decent mentions in real-world sources (mostly in the form of paper newspapers, though, so it's hard to verify how big a part of those articles this was) which lead me to believe this probably just about fits the notability criteria. However, I agree that the article contains a load of really unnecessary OR trivia at the moment - it needs cleaning up but I don't think deleting is necessary. ~ mazca ^talk 06:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep The article already cites the Boston Globe, the Toronto Star and the Dayton Daily News. The song charted at the top of Dr Demento's annual list which is a significant accolade for such a novelty song. Notability is therefore established readily by just reading the article. Furthermore, the nomination suggests that the outcome should be to redirect or merge the material. Merger and redirection are Keep results and do not require deletion. Since the nomination misrepresents the facts and does not seek deletion, it should be speedily closed. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The redirect and merge suggestions were alternate suggestions (hence the phrase "other options"), and the only one of those sources to actually mention this specific animation is the Boston Globe article. The Toronto Star article is about animutations in general, and the Dayton Daily News article is part of a "Seen and Heard" column that just talks about whatever seems to catch the author's fancy ([48] [49] [50] [51] [52]).

More to the point, a speedy keep should only be used when you have reason to suspect the nomination was in bad faith. That being said, feel free to oppose the nomination. --jonny-mt 13:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. As a fifth nomination, this looks like filibustering to me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The last nomination was well over a year ago and ended in no consensus. Please take a look through WP:SK. --jonny-mt 14:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - One year isn't too short, but sources exist. Cleanup would be nice but not required. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable Internet meme. The last.fm page for Lemon Demon is also particularly informative [53]. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per Mazca. The article needs to be less cluttered if it is informative, and I would suggest that the massive tables add nothing to the understanding of the subject, but notability is otherwise well demonstrated. Ford MF (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep/cleanup, it cites sources, it's notable, it's been on Dr. Demento, just need to cut the cruft off. ViperSnake151 00:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• WP:SNOWBALL KEEP per all other voters. --Firefly322 (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Y.A.S.U.

Y.A.S.U. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No independent third party sources to speak of. Utterly non notable. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete — No evidence of notability. macy^talk 01:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge or Redirect to Daemon Tools, since it is listed as an addon on the Daemon Tools Website.--Voidvector (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge or Redirect per Voidvector's logic. Happyme22 (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vic Jacobs

Vic Jacobs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not make the notability of this radio personality clear. He's worked at several stations but so have 10's of thousands of others. Zero 3rd party references in the article. The references I've found mention him but only in passing and are all local to the LA market. Nothing that meets WP:BIO's call for the person to be the subject of secondary source material. Is this person really notable or is this article fan cruft? Rtphokie (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the article should stay. I added a lot of the information to the article originally, but just as far as some biographical information (mostly from his bio from the station's website), but others have added information such as his unabashed cheerleading for Kobe Bryant and the Lakers, which is what Jacobs is mostly known for nowadays. Checking your profile, you're obviously not from the Los Angeles area, otherwise you would have a better understanding about Jacobs and his shtick. Personally, I think Jacobs (or rather his act) is a buffoon and an embarassment to sports radio in this area, but that sort of what makes him more interesting. You (or Wikipedia) take his article off, then you should do it for everyone else. ShawnHill (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment, Where I'm from is immaterial though I'm originally from the LA area and travel there still for what it's worth. Either this person is notable and sufficient verifiable 3rd party references can located and added to the article, or they aren't and the article needs to be deleted.--Rtphokie (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete vanity piece that fails WP:BIO Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete as it appears from the article and provided sources that subject has a very modest amount of fame but lacks sufficient notability. - Dravecky (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steel Halo

Steel Halo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to fail WP:N to me. SeizureDog (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N. No indication or assertion of notability. Happyme22 (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete The creator of this article only edited on this particular subject a few times here and nothing more. He may be a fan. But there should be more given notability. Artene50 (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion of notability to satisfy WP:N. Reads like an advertisement and violates WP:NOT#GUIDE as it stands also. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Sephiroth, Masterpiece, and Happyme. Fails to meet WP:NOTE. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 05:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• DeleteDeffinetly fails WP:N. And it list no refrences, at least the creator could have tried to look for refrences, it would be better off with just on ref instead on none.Gears Of War 14:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete — No evidence of notability. macy^talk 16:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)