Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 2

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

The result was Page was speedy deleted. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pre Production/ Demo (As Blood Runs Black album)

Pre Production/ Demo (As Blood Runs Black album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Captain panda 23:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. RFerreira (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tanveer Ali Hussain

Tanveer Ali Hussain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No references; claims of awards do not match the relevant facts on Wikipedia articles; probable hoax (or at least extreme exaggeration of the truth). MightyWarrior (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This article has been recreated, having previously been speedy deleted. A further speedy tag was removed by the creator of the article, but I haven't replaced it as I'm not convinced that it "doesn't assert notability". It probably does, albeit erroneously! If the article is deleted, could we consider salting the name? -- MightyWarrior (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Having been bold and removed the obviously false information, the article no longer asserts sufficient notability to remain. Therefore I'm suggesting that it is speedy deleted. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The name seems fairly common, but I couldn't find any reference to this exact name and football, therefore fails WP:V. Kevin (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete probable hoax Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced article, probably a hoax. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of notability provided. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Open Learning Environment

Open Learning Environment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability (apart from a claim on the talk page that it was used by the "accredited online colleges" as part of their website). Still not clear whether this is about a product or a concept (neither is the article creator, according to the talk page).

I originally PRODded the article for these reasons, and because a Google search gave < 10 hits. PROD was removed by another editor, because apparently it was "mean" to include "Voloper" in the search terms, even though that appears to be the product's (?) creator, according to the article. For reference, another Voloper-related article has recently been deleted via AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenSites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oli Filth (talk • contribs)

• Delete, strongly. An unreferenced article about non-notable, non-consumer software, laden with meaningless, essayish and promotional language: OLE tailored for corporate environments allows for business training and on-going corporate education via a dynamic collaboration environment. The phrase "open learning environment" may have applications to things other than this product. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- The term Open Learning Environment is being used to advertise a non-notable product by the Voloper Creations Inc. That is very clear now.

I am sorry Oli Filth, you were right, that article should have been PRODed.

I am the user who wrongly removed the PROD template.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• This is a legitimate entry modeled after other legitimate entries on Wikipedia (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibco and Learn.com) and should not be deleted. The content is not in copyright violation.
  • Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff existsWP: Other Stuff Exists.
    • Open Learning Environment is notable for at least three reasons: 1. Open Learning Environment should be included among the hundreds of companies listed in the Wikipedia category "Software companies", 2. It was referenced in two notable and educational texts, and 3. It was an early example of the open content movement. Mariam-t (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Mariam-t is the article's author and is using Wikipedia as a free advertisement vehicle for the company Voloper Creations Inc.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 13:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I am the author of the OLE article, I have used many e-learning platforms at school (York U) such as moddle, webct, balckboard, etc.. and in my opinion and other students opinions they are not very effective and user friendly. There hard to work with and have so many bugs to work out. About a year ago I started to use open learning environment and I found it to be very easy to work with. Its simple and straightforward. I think that they should get recognized for the system that they have created. It is the same for the opensites framework that the same company developed. With every single article in wikipedia its people that really like the product, services, topic, ect, and they wanted to make people aware of it. On another and personal note, I don't work for Voloper, I own my open business (hair salon) and I'm a full time student at York U. Mariam-t (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral I have no idea how well-used this software is and it did seem like an advertisement. However, Mariam-t, even if the article ends up staying, I see no reason why "Open Learning Environment" should be in the software companies categories since it is an application. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is an application, sorry about that, I'll remove it Mariam-t (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep As an application, it fits perfectly in that cateogry of pages, and it has an inhernet utility as references for users. Article needs heavy POV cleaning and referencing some independent sources, but apart form that, is similar in scope andd atyle to thousends of other well respecet application programs. That said, I profoundly disagree with the reasons proposed by the article's author for keeping, though. Wikipedia is not a hall of fame, "they" don't deserve any "recognition" for their hard work or whatever, the article should stay ONLY because it looks to me to be a notable subject and useful resource for users. WP it's NOT a tool to "make people aware" of stuff, it should reflect the things that people are already aware of, hence the WP:NOTE requirement for articles. Gorgonzola (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have already edited the parts that sound like advertisment to me, I guess becuase I am the one that wrote the article I can't see the 'POV' problems (I am assuming the POV is point of view, hopefully) so if you could point out the parts that need cleaning up I would be happy to do them. Mariam-t (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability. DGG (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Nevill

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

The article claims that this young actor is a co-star in a popular television show, but the article does not include any reliable sources confirming his notability, nor could I find such references with a google search. Is it a hoax, or just a self-aggrandizing autobiography? Or, and I'm stretching good faith as far as I can here, is this a notable person whose sources I simply couldn't find? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as hoax. Oli Filth^(talk) 23:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No secondary source evidence of notability. Kevin (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete per WP:COI. Created by single purpose account, DanN91 for the purposes of self-aggrandisement Ohconfucius (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable bio Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:HOAX. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete per JuJube. Cunard (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Ohconfucius. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete A3, non-admin closure by Lenticel ^(talk) 23:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Joseph School(Redding)

Saint Joseph School(Redding) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

School who's notability has not been asserted Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 23:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and allow someone to start fresh. Consider a speedy under A3 as well. The title is useless as a redirect and there is no info in this beyond the fact it's a school in Redding...which anyone who might even remotely consider researching this already knows. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Corpsicle

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and also Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so therefore this article is inappropriate and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Science fiction concept that's been used in a number of notable works. Referenced; references could be improved, but they're good enough. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Frivolous cookie-cutter nomination. The article cites multiple sources and so it appears that the nominator has not read it. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Try "wikipedia is not a dictionary" then. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the article? It's not a dictdef. And even if it were, there's a better solution in this case than deletion. Bryan Derksen (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The article is more that a dictionary definition. I've added another book BTW. Kevin (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. When this article was prodded I made a suggestion on the talk page of better alternatives to deletion. Since apparently no attention was paid one way or another, I'm guessing the prod was merely a pre-AfD formality. Bryan Derksen (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, Bryan, that appears to be the case. The usual thought put into the AfD. --Blechnic (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Cryonics#Cryonics in popular culture. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 14:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • • Keep as its own article, as Kevin says, it is more than a dictionary definition and has adequate sources.
• Keep - oh, come on. Not only can I not disagree with the assessment that the nominator has failed to read the article, but everyone's got a corpsicle story. We get stories written about science fiction story writers discussing their corpsicle stories. --Kizor 19:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bratz Girlz Really Rock (video game)

Bratz Girlz Really Rock (video game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was re-created a day after it was deleted pursuant to WP:PROD by User:Sauce2243 (author of the deleted version: User:Strongsauce21). The article cites no reliable sources and claims to be about a video game set for release in mere months by a studio that has announced games for release into 2009 with no mention of this one. I submit this is likely deliberate misinformation that is likely here to prove a point and/or disrupt the project. Erechtheus (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I also nominate Bratz Kidz: Slumber Party under the same rationale. Erechtheus (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC) I withdraw the nomination of this second article. I didn't look fully enough at the edit history and mistook vandalism to the article for a hoax article. Erechtheus (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - even if it isn't deliberate misinformation, an unsourced article of an unreleased game violates WP:V. Without reliable sources telling us about it it's hard to make an encyclopedic article on something unreleased and seemingly unannounced. ~ mazca ^talk 22:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - agreed. It doesn't seem to have much useful information anyways, however false it may be. I don't turn up any corroborating information from a quick search, though its a bit hard to sift through results of the "eponymous" movie. RShnike (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No reliable sources that do more than state the name. So fails WP:V and is likely not yet notable. Kevin (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete From the "creator" of Dancing With The Stars: BreakOUT! (where the celebrity dancers compete in...Compton to profanity-laced reggaton?) and Sex and the City (video game) (Where you're Samantha and trying to sleep with everything in sight without contracting an STD). Yet another unsourced hoax from this vandal who just won't stop. Nate • (chatter) 01:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete As "deliberate misinformation" is considered vandalism. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete yet more idiocy. Creator needs to be blocked immediately. JuJube (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Jasynnash2, these types of articles should be treated as vandalism IMHO. RFerreira (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. Vandalism articles should be deleted immediately. Cunard (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. There is evidence to suggest that the game may actually exist, which - even if slim - would mean that the article does not qualify as an obvious hoax - and cannot (or, rather, should not) be speedied. However, it's pure WP:CRYSTAL in the absence of more information and sources, so it should be deleted anyway per WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shalini Sehkar

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

No notability, probably advertising. Justinfr (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of secondary sources to show notability. Kevin (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. No assertion of notability, fails WP:BLP miserably due to lack of RS. JGHowes ^talk - 02:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the quotes from the subject's blog that was previously considered advertising, and I rewrote the whole article. That was why I removed the tag.

Sorry if that counts as vandalism.

--hbbtk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbbtk (talk • contribs) 18:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's understandable, though the notability tag also was removed and, as of yet, no editor has made a case for why the article's subject is notable, as per WP:BLP or WP:NOTE. Justinfr (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Google brings up various secondary sources. ---hbbtk

• Do not delete. ---As hbbtk says, Google brings up secondary sources, notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.116.29 (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've glanced through the first four pages of google results and only see blog entries, online profiles, etc., not reliable sources. The only exception I could find is an online newsletter from CMU. If you would please provide specific links it would be helpful because I remain unconvinced. Justinfr (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Do not delete There is an article from the Center for Inquiry about the subject, some discussion at Telic Thoughts, and Google notability is a lot higher than some of the other subjects in the category 'Science Bloggers'. I would say do not delete. ----hbbtk

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

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

The result was and so deleted blatant copyvio _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yin Yoga

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

Article has no third-party reliable sources. All links are to YinYoga dot com or personal websites. Had this been created recently, I would've speedily deleted as blatant advertising. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete at this stage I have since removed most of the advertisingmaterial which the nominator rightly points/ed out, and have also removed what appears to be the "how to manual" material, essay and original research. I note also comments made by the editor Bernieclark (who had a prominent conflict of interest link/reference which has also been removed). To my mind this article now particularly suffers from notability - not notability of the fact of yoga or Yin/Yan and the history of these concepts but why Yin Yoga itself is notable. I do not see any information which details that notability and it appears at this stage to just be another form of yoga shala (school) of which there are, of course, 10's of 1000's around the world. Unless that notability issue can be solved this article should be deleted.--VS ^talk 23:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a blatant copyright violation. So tagged. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Swoogle

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

Pretty cool tool, but doesn't appear to be under active development. Last news posting on website is from November 2007, with regular postings in February 2006. Paper appears to have been published in 2004. Note search engine still says 2007 on Splash page. Finally the one reference is hosted on the ebiquity website, which appears to be just the website of the lab that was developing this project. In short the tool is not notable, under active development, or fully functional. I let User: Finin know that I would use the AfD process to delete the article unless he had any objections about 3 weeks ago, I haven't heard from him. Jussen (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, a project which has received substantial scholarly attention including an ACM paper devoted to it which itself is cited 172 times. There are numerous Google Books results as well (some overlap). Not bad for a moribund project, really. --Dhartung | Talk 22:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - That the project is now moribund doesn't change the fact that it received significant attention at the time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Dhartung and Morven. Gorgonzola (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as well. You convinced me! I'd like to point out though that most of the Google Scholar articles appear to be written by contributors. While we usually require third party sources to write about the subject as a main topic, that's academia I'm afraid. Jussen (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm not at all sure what to do with Citecloud; I have no experience on SPAs. I'll just leave him alone. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LOLCODE

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

The article does not cite any reliable secondary sources. Also not notable. Citedcloud (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Note to closing admin The nominator of this AfD appears to be a single-purpose account, created solely to initiate this AfD. It is also probably an alternative account of an experienced Wikipedia editor. The nominator has (so far) not responded to requests (below) to explain their unusual actions. It is therefore possible that this might be a bad faith nomination. Please take this into account when closing this AfD. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Nothing more really needs to be said. Clearly non-notable with clearly unreliable secondary sources. —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Weak Delete This is sort of a close call (and I LOL'd), but too much tongue-in-cheek self-reference and bloggage, as opposed to reliable third party coverage. Townlake (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep - not notable ??? Featured at Microsft's TechED 2007 conference; implemented in Microsoft DLR; mentioned in Computer Department News at Lancaster University (home of creator) and on CNN (I have added sources to the article); and literally tens of thousands of Google hits. Obviously meets notability criteria. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Not necessarily, the GNAA article has more 'notability' than this, and it got deleted! Citedcloud (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Don't know what the "GNAA article" is/was, but the fate of other articles is not really relevant here - each article should stand or fall on its own merits in AfD. But I was sufficiently interested to try to track down the "GNAA article" in your contribution history. So I saw you created a new account Citedcloud on June 2 and your first action is to nominate an article on AfD. Do you perhaps have another Wikipedia account somewhere ? Gandalf61 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment the account thing is irrelevant. please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination) for more information on the GNAA article deletion. Citedcloud (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment The "account thing" is very relevant, because openness is important in AfD discussions. Unless you are open about your use of different accounts, how do we know that you are not contributing to this discussion under different aliases ? There are sometimes legitimate reasons for using alternative accounts, but there are also procedures that should be followed to ensure openness. You are obviously much more familiar with Wikipedia procedures and history than a truly new user would be. I invite you to explain which other Wikipedia account names you have used in the past, whether you are still using them, and why you created what appears to be a single purpose account to initiate this AfD. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment No response to my invitation above, so I have added a Note to closing admin at the top of this AfD. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Nooooo they be deleetin our LOLCODE! Keep, this artikel can has reputabil sorses and iz well ritten deskripshun of novl programmin langvitz. JIP | Talk 17:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There's even a category for this kind of things, even if this one in particular is syntactically poor and un-elegant, and a general sloppy execution of a potentially good and funnny idea. Gorgonzola (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• keep dis artakul, nawt safe to deleted it. Teh LOLCODE is passes mah Bay-jor An Werm whole tesst justest bearily. Oh noooo! iss Wermhall tesset is four frictional werx, is so delete cuz not fictionous User:Pedant (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • O rly? WP:BEY DJURAN WERM HOLE TEHST appliez to lolcode to reel frikshunal langwage but lolcode intertubez meme iz all ur fandom r belong to buzz. Can I haz compewter policy?!!? Skolars rite serioos artikulz on LOLCODE: [1], meat weepee:verifayahbility an weepee:reliabul sorses. I'm in ur policy, visible WP:N, 132 000 ghitz, teh googlez haXX0rz an Sun do want compiler [2][3], O RLY RADAR, langwage log write on it [4][5], an emm ess emm too: [6][7] [8] . user:wee-kee-lawyah kitteh¨¨ victor falk DO WANT KEEP.
• Keep - im in ur page, voting keep --ざくら木 16:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, then fire Adam Lindsay from Lancaster University, then demolish Lancaster University as undeserving of any academic reputation, then remove Lancatser's city status, then flood Lancashire to convert it to a better use as a reservoir to protect against the consequences of global warming. MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beer Blow

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

Disputed prod (and rightfully-declined speedy). notability doesn't seem to be present and, although sources are provided, none are reliable since all amount to self-publication. Doesn't seem to be sufficiently similar to Beer pong to be melded with it. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - No reliable sources, no substantial coverage (even by pop-culture standards). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete please, following the above. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - not encyclopaedic, nor sufficiently notable. Richard Harvey (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete per WP:NFT. This appears to be something made up in school one day, which WP is not Ohconfucius (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete because even if it wasn't made up in one day the article's a how-to and WP:NOTHOWTO. Morenoodles (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Bartlett

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

Contested prod (by IP, no explanation). Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully pro league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete player fails notability at WP:Bio#Athlete having never played in a fully-pro league. --Jimbo^[online] 11:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 13:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. BanRay 17:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Gorgonzola (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2010 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season

2010 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Proposed as per WP:CRYSTAL. The speculated schedule is a copy of this year's schedule, with some unsourced addition. There are no confirmed participants also. Asendoh (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - too early, complete guesswork. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It's far too early, everything is speculation. As soon as this was created I was deleting the entrants. It is impossible to confirm entrants to the season until a few months before the season actually starts which is when Dorna and the FIM announce the entrants. Before that it's just speculation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ged UK (talk • contribs) 16:42, 3 June 2008
• Delete per nom. Gorgonzola (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uplift War Glossary

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

Not encyclopedic; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. KurtRaschke (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nominator. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information, of which this is a classic example. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GreenPound

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

No evidence this web currency is notable. The website does not have an article and false positives aside as it's a difficult search term, there's no evidence it would pass WP:WEB. Therefore, no apparent logical redirect. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Obviously not a notable subject. --neonwhite user page talk 21:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ivan Nikčević

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

Contested prod (no reason given). Footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully professional league (the Third League of Montenegro is not a fully professional league). Also nominating:

• Milos Radović
• Marko Milošević
• Sasa Bulatović

for exactly the same reason, as well as {{FK Igalo Squad}}, which lists a whole bunch of them and {{FK Igalo squad}} which is a duplicate. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all as per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 11:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. GiantSnowman 13:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom BanRay 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was an utter mess of a discussion, from which no policy-informed consensus either way is discernible. If these articles are still seen as problematic, I recommend individual re-nominations, one after the other. A centralised discussion might be even better, as it would allow us to consider solutions that do not involve deletion (e.g., merging). — Procedural note: To save time, I'll be removing the dozens of AfD tags with administrative rollback, and only the first talk page will be tagged with an AfD notice.  Sandstein  19:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Post-closure note: Some editors have proposed to continue discussion of this topic at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ohio/HS Athletic Conferences.  Sandstein  20:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pioneer Conference

[edit] Arbitrary Header Section

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

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

Fails WP:NOTE High School Conferences not notable as shown here. Also pages are duplicate information that definitely is not relevant enough to have info listed multiple times on multiple pages. Full list of conferences with schools already exists. Why does each conference with schools need to be duplicated on several individual pages, Ohio High School Athletic Conferences.

• THREE BITS OF PRECEDENT FOR DELETION STRAIGHT FROM OHIO CONFERENCE LIST
  
• 1.) Cincinnati Hills League
  
• 2.) Greater Miami Conference
  
• 3.) Suburban League
  

Other examples from other states - Interstate Eight Conference, Sangamo Conference, Six Rivers Conference

To discuss these claims, see discussion after Arbitrary Break #3

For sake of space see... Category:Ohio_high_school_sports_conferences. These other articles have been tagged as they are other high school conferences in Ohio. Note that several of these have been tagged with notability issues. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Notice of possible Single Purpose Accounts

The following accounts have made few or no edits outside this topic:

• BurpTheBaby (talk · contribs), reported by davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beginning of discussions

• Keep All Notable conferences. Most pages have more than a simple list of the schools Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 22:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Because its duplicate information and Huskies provided precedent, but I think the list should remain. --UWMSports (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The prescedent doesn't mean much. see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 02:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The reason for the deletion on the page I gave was high school conferences don't exist. And other crap exists is when a person says why are you deleting my page when other crappy stuff exists elsewhere. Doesn't really work against deletion here.--GoHuskies9904 (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, other stuff exists does work here. The merits of the other articles that GoHuskies9904 brought up that are both articles and on lists are'nt up for discussion. just the athletic conferences. <Baseballfan789 (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm confused by what you are saying. The list is fine because its centralized and all you really need for high school athletic conferences. Having multiple pages with the same thing added with seasonal sports just wastes space. As Airtuna states below, everyone knows basketball is a winter sport, baseball is a spring sport. That doesn't add much to an article. If every page could contain a full history and what not then they might be acceptable. But right now each page is basically not much more than a list of schools with links to their home pages and the sports they play which are universal. What you really have is a central list and then 25+ individual conference lists. They aren't notable enough to be listed in several different places. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Most pages have more than the list of schools. The ones that don't should have info added as i mentioned in my vote below. If theres nothing to add, then they should be listed for deletion as separate articles. But back to the other stuff exists discussion, the fact that some articles were merged to a list has nothing to do with this discussion or these athletic conferences <Baseballfan789 (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep...agree with Frank. Most pages, Northeast Ohio Conference included, have more than just lists; they have histories and explanations. Portage Trail Conference is another example that is more than a simple list. Just look at the Northeast Ohio Conference article and see that each sport has a different divisional makeup, something that is unique and requires an article to explain it. As for Pioneer Conference I think it should be expanded with relevant history and other useful information beyond a simple list.--JonRidinger (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per above. The articles that are now just a simile list should be expanded to include sports offered, history, etc. <Baseballfan789 (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep All per Jon & Frank--Cube lurker (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - The purpose of having high school athletic conferences flood over 30+ pages when there's a central list is what exactly? Its common knowledge for the most part what sports are fall, winter and spring. That's the only thing I see besides a list of schools on each conference page. There are about 2 or 3 pages that are further expanded, but this is the kind of thing where you keep all or delete all since they are part of a unit. --Airtuna08 (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  Speedy Delete - Precedent was provided with the Cincinnati article Huskies gave. Reason for deletion was high school athletics conferences are not notable. Also, TunaFish brings up a good point, why are all these separate articles necessary when a central list already exists? A listing of seasonal sports is pretty much uniform everywhere, so the fact the individual pages contain those do not make them worthy of standing alone! --FancyMustard (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment It's no different than having a list of schools and then having an article about each school. The list of athletic conferences in Ohio is a centralized list (i.e. a starting point), just like lists showing schools by county or schools by state, etc. Athletic conferences have histories, different setups, etc. I've mentioned two that have been tagged for deletion, both of which already contain explanations as to why and how they formed, what schools are a part of them and why, as well as notable traits and other info not contained in a list (enrollments, location, colors, etc...just like in a collegiate conference article). Neither of those fit the reasoning of just being duplicate lists.--JonRidinger (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep All per Frank's comments. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Can we have a reason, not just per so and so's comments. Not disputing you, just curious as to why YOU think the pages should stay. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Okay then. Take Western Buckeye League for an example. It doesn't fit the stereotype of just a list of schools with the sports. It conatins athletic history as far back as the 1940's. Not to mention, the main category these articles are in has around 255 High School Conferences; picking Ohio as a subcat is easy to deal with. But all of those articles really don't assert any notability? I find that hard to believe. And since we're getting rid of high school conferences; might as well Tfd the templates and tag all other conferences for this Afd as well. Have to keep one step ahead. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Also, could you please point out anywhere else, besides one admin's opinion that high school conferences are not notable? Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Can you point out where an admin supported a high school conference in an AfD. I gave you some precedent where it wasn't notable in the past. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• undent:Okay, that wasn't an attack. Just a question. And no I will not go through every Afd looking for a High Scholl Conference one, and then going through every !vote of support to see if one was an admin. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well you had asked for another one from me when I already provided one. It would be your move to find one that backs your cause. And I didn't take it as an attack, just more of an odd request. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• I have begun to look for the repository of closed Afds and can only find open ones. I'll let you know if I turn anything up. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep All The individual pages can serve as documents for league histories. That's one of the nice unique things about Wikipedia, they have articles on things you may not find elsewhere. I liked that this site gave credibility to topics that didn't normally have any. Frank12 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  Recommend Delete, no official vote - No one uses Wikipedia to look up high school conferences. I think there are way too many uneccessary articles on Wiki. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)— BurpTheBaby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Careful with blanket statements like "no one." Most high school athletics conferences, at least the ones I have looked for in Ohio, do not have official websites; most of the info on each conference comes from newspaper articles, history books, and school or other websites, so Wikipedia is one of the few places that puts it all together. Just because you may not use Wikipedia to look up info on a high school conference doesn't mean no one else does. Further, not all states have high school athletics conferences like Ohio does, so they are somewhat unique. Utah, for example, simply assigns high schools to regions, which act as a conference but a school does not have a direct say as to what region they are in and the regions themselves do not have rules or guildelines unique to themselves like an Ohio high school conference can. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply Not having a website deosn't have anything to do with notability. Take Brookside, Ohio; they don't have their own website. Western Buckeye League & Ohio Valley Athletic Conference; the first two I looked at both had websites as well. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Exactly, I for one usually turn to Wikipedia to look up a topic that may not be written about somewhere else. I figure since anyone can edit, someone probably wrote about whatever it is I want to look up. Also, that's interesting about Utah high schools! Frank12 (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment If there aren't any websites or what not on the subject, why should it be notable for Wikipedia. You would think those sites that specialize in high school sports would have it. If they don't, why should a broad encyclopedia like Wikipedia have them? --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've always had the notion that because of Wikipedia's unique setup, it included a wider range of topics than other encyclopedias. If it didn't, I wouldn't find it any more significant than the rest. Frank12 (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There may not be an official "Pioneer Conference Website" but a website does not necessarily equal notability. I would venture to say that most high school conferences don't have a website because they simply don't regard the costs of upkeeping a good website as a good use of money or they simply don't have the money period. High school conferences in Ohio are similar to collegiate conferences in how they are formed, their management, and structured, but high school conferences don't have big sponsorship deals to bring in money like their collegiate counterparts. The conferences, however, are frequently mentioned as governing bodies in newspaper articles and by the schools who are members; they are legal entities, not just loose associations like a region. And, it's not that there aren't any websites on the subject, but there are no comprehensive ones. That is typical of a lot of topics on Wikipedia, even higher notability...that being sources and info in a variety of scattered places both on and off line. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Only two edits, one to their userpage and one to this Afd. Suspect a meatpuppet. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  For fairness of the vote, you can discount mine, Mustard is my co-worker who was talking about it during the afternoon. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC) — BurpTheBaby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Can't really use that as a reason Bobby, who looks up most of the pages on Wiki, haha. And you can't vote in AfDs I vote in. Just a proximity rule.--FancyMustard (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  They got you guys on a technicality but I'm more concerned about the flood gate opening with all these conflicted users who are getting in contact with each other over this. I think their vote should be looked at as less since clearly no one who creates an article is going to say delete to their own article. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - If every user who participated in the creation of these pages vote its going to be unfairly slanted. How many people without a WP:COI are going to see the AfD? --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with the article's primary author coming into an AfD to defend his or her work, especially when constructive arguments can be made. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 00:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep All for now. Some articles are written very well and are informative while others are just a list of schools and maybe a list of the sports sanctioned by the league. This nom borders on or maybe crosses the line on WP:AON. Tag the articles with notability concerns and relist those articles individually if the concerns are not resolved in an appropriate amount of time. Ben1283 (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  modified, see in arbitrary break 6

• Keep - too much variation in quality among these articles; need to nominate problematic pieces individually. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Not notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect on a case-by-case basis, as per Christopher Parham above. Surely the nom is correct that there is no need for a stub for every conference when we have a centralized list (they can be changed to redirects to the main list), but for at least a couple of these it appears there is notable information. (Disclosure: I am moderating a Wikiquette alert involving two involved users) --Jaysweet (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  Also, be careful to make sure any useful information is merged when doing the redirects. For instance, some of the individual conference stubs have the conference logo, and it would be nice to merge that in to the main list when available. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  We could put some of the material into the central list. I'm still not sure how notable any of this really is, but merging stuff over to the list could be a good compromise, because a lot of people feel the material should exist, but its obviously excessive to have several stubs on these articles as well. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment -- I agree with Ben1283, this is an all or nothing decision. We cannot be selective in which to keep and which to delete. Either keep all because they are equally part of the Ohio HS system or delete all. Doesn't make sense to have articles on just a few of the Ohio HS conferences just because they look nice. They all have the exact same notability or lack of notability.--UWMSports (talk) Today, 12:34 pm (UTC-4)

• That is the complete opposite of what I said. This nom violates WP:AON because the conferences should be listed individually due to great ranges of notability and information in each of the articles Ben1283 (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree entirely. That's like saying that if we include an article on The Beatles, we have to include an article on my old band because they are both defunct four-piece rock bands. If one or more of the conferences has something notable about it, e.g. a team that consistently wins state championships, a lot of notable alumni, a controversy or scandal, etc., then it might make sense to keep it. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  Oh, I agree with you if there are special circumstances. Say a conference had a big scandal or something, or a community happens to groom many notable athletics like Donora, Pennsylvania. However, comparing the Beatles and my old band doesn't paint what's going on here. These conferences are part of the Ohio High School Athletics system. The Beatles and my old band aren't connected that way. So I fail to see your analogy there. But I do agree with your point about special circumstances. --UWMSports (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break 1

• Keep - the nominator linked to just a deletion log, which doesn't tell me anything on why high school athletic conferences shouldn't be notable, just that one person deleted an article on them. I'm a direct contradiction to the idea that no one has looked up high school athletics conferences on Wikipedia as I have, and I've made edits to them. I think that if high schools are notable, as consensus consistently proves, the organizations that bind them together therefore have to be notable as well. matt91486 (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  I gave you precedent where High School Athletic conferences were deemed non-notable. Now find something that says otherwise. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  Frankly, one admin's opinion; who isn't even active anymore. Isn't much of s precedent in the first place. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  Doesn't matter if he's not active. That was the precedent. Doesn't the Supreme Court make most of their decisions based on precedent? That is even if the Supreme Court justice that started the precedent is long dead. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  Wikipedia policy frowns upon precedents. The merits of the specific conferences that were deleted are not up for discussion, only the conferences in this nomination (per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) <Baseballfan789 (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  You're right; it doesn't matter if they're not active. Either way; with no guidelines or discussions prior or after that isolated incident I don't see why one deletion should hold any ground. I'm sure the Supreme Court talks about things before doing them; I saw no discussion for that article. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  So if you find one that works in your favor I would expect you to have the same skeptical view and say it was just another isolated incident that happened to find HS conferences notable. Come on StepShep, you'd be flaunting it like crazy. I have some precedent, you guys do not. I'm just asking you to be fair and acknowledge it as I would acknowledge any findings in your favor. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  I stopped looking, so don't worry about that. I'm just stating that one incident cannot set a precedent for the deletion of around 255 articles. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  FWIW, Stepshep is basically correct. While precedent is informative, it is not binding on Wikipedia. The fact that the other article was considered non-notable is worth bringing up, but it's just one point among many. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not saying it should make or break this, but it is something that cannot be totally dismissed as Step, etc are trying to do. Like I said if something was found that pointed the other direction they'd be using it like crazy. The Supreme Court does talk about things before voting obviously. But if there is precedent it is very rare that they will change things. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  (reset indent)

  Fair 'nuff, although I have to point out that SCOTUS's procedures are completely irrelevant to Wikipedia's procedures :) SCOTUS precedent is considered binding, lower courts are expected to abide by it, and later SCOTUS members are very reluctant to overturn past precedent and err on the side of sticking to it. Wikipedia precedent is not considered binding, nobody is expected to abide by it unless it becomes an official policy, and it is standard operating procedure for new consensus to overturn previous precedence. So I don't think your SCOTUS analogy makes any sense here :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  One admin's decision, if not based on any discussion, is hardly a good enough precedent. If you can find an actual debated policy that says it's not notable, that's a different matter entirely, but I don't accept a unilateral deletion log as a precedent. matt91486 (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  Of course you don't, so I would expect you not to accept anything that you find that goes the other way. Be objective and acknowledge its existence. Then find a reason as to why it shouldn't stick. Just saying it isn't acceptable isn't a reason to dismiss it. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  I am finding a reason why, as I said in my argument earlier. I'm saying decisions are supposed to be made by a consensus, and there wasn't one made there. That's why I find it invalid. This discussion is working towards a consensus which can actually serve as a precedent. See: Wikipedia:Consensus. matt91486 (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks, I do know what a consensus is, hence why I brought this to a discussion and not a straight out deletion request. Goodluck in your search! --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The "precedent" cited refers to an ambiguous action of one editor; deleting on that basis would be ludicrous. The assertion of redundancy also seems unreasonable to me -- the league is merely named in a list, so the only redundant bit of info is that the league exists. Currently, the article says a lot more than "the Pioneer Conference exists" -- and there's still room for expansion. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The list is pretty much the same as whats in the articles with the exception of two or three of the conferences. And I'm not saying delete based on that precedent, but it should be a pretty hard nugget to get by. I'm still waiting for a reason as to why high school conferences ARE notable. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  Currently 21 of the 40 articles nominated, or 53%, have more info than a list of members. That is much more than the "two or three" that you bring up. Ben1283 (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge all into a greatly expanded Ohio High School Athletic Conferences article. Individually they are no more notable than state organizations within a larger organization. Even if on paper they are separate they are de facto equivalent to regions of a statewide athletic conference. To facilitate the merge, keep the history, redirect all, and full-protect the redirects for 30 days to prevent edit-warring or innocent reverts by people unaware of the AfD. Leave the talk pages alone. If any of these are notable in their own right, say, by being the subject of a book, then an article about that particular conference can be re-created. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Procedurally Relist by state: Conferences that include more than one state should be relisted individually. My vote will be to merge all in any given state together and keep those crossing state lines as they don't have an obvious merge target. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC) updated again, see comment below with this timestamp. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment- David, which conferences are in multiple states. From what I understand high school conferences stay within the state and compete against each other for State Championships and what not. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Just through glancing at the article's images I can say for sure Ohio Valley Athletic Conference is in two states; there are possibly others. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Conference affiliation has little bearing on state championships, so it's not surprising there are conferences with schools in multiple states. Even for those entirely in-state, conference members can compete in different OHSAA size divisions. For example, the Portage Trail Conference, in theory, could have five state champions in football in one season because its 16 members play in Ohio's Divisions II, III, IV, V, and VI. In other words, winning the conference division does not determine who gets into the state playoffs and conferences are not all exclusively one size division, though they are usually schools close in size. This is where high school conferences are different from collegiate ones, again, adding to their notability. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment This action implies that all the articles here are simply lists of conference members and sports they sponsor, when it has already been pointed out that some of the articles have documented histories and unique conference rules in their individual articles and can already stand on their own. No need to do a mass merge for articles that don't need it just to satisfy some people who feel they aren't notable enough to be on Wikipedia, plus the main list already exists. They are either notable enough to warrant an individual article or they aren't. Why make extra work when we don't need to?

As for high school conferences being notable, why are college conferences notable? Because they're on TV? Because they have a website? In essence, high school conferences, at least in Ohio, function very similarly to collegiate conferences. While they are certainly not as notable as a collegiate conference, that doesn't mean they are not notable at all, especially in light of the articles on high schools, which make mention of the school's conference affiliation. If the high school is notable enough to have its own article, why isn't the conference it is a part of notable enough? I have already mentioned how conferences in Ohio are different than in some other states (which don't use conferences) and how a given conference can have it's own specific rules, history, and structure; things that are notable even if it is lower. A simple list cuts out a lot of information. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused to as why the Cincinnati league within this list of conferences was deemed non-notable then. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Same here; and so is Jimbo from the sound of it. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Who is Jimbo? hahahahaha --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Addendum to proposal to relist - Only those which are stubs OR which do not clearly list a particular reason for notability beyond "This is an Ohio athletic conference, ergo it is notable" should be relisted or merged. Non-stubs that do list a reason should be left alone. Non-stubs that do not clearly list a reason should be tagged and worked on. Stubs which do not list a reason should be merged. Stubs that do list a reason should be expanded. In any case, the bottom line is: Do not delete until after relisting, and only delete those which are mere stubs which do not make a claim of notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep all. The conference whose addition to AFD brought me here, Portage County League, contains a great deal more information, concerning both the definition of the league and its history, than the article cited as making the individual conference pages redundant. This detailed information would not be appropriate for the state-wide list, but is definitely important and encyclopedic to those seeking information on the league. So I vote to keep them all, as encyclopedic information will be lost from Wikipedia which cannot be appropriately merged into other existing articles. Although some articles are sparse at this time, they will likely be expanded in the future. --Dan East (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all. Let's keep Wikipedia great and focus energy on more important matters.EagleFan (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  Comment - That's not a reason, EagleFan. The truth is a conference from this Ohio system was already deemed not-notable two years ago. A page that was much like most of the pages in the collection. And to be frank, if we're going to focus energy on more important matters, we should probably ask ourselves why are we Wikipedia addicts! Haha. --UWMSports (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  Please prove that the article which was deleted was similar to these articles. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  Ohio_High_School_Athletic_Conferences#Cincinnati_Hills_League; "and the crowd goes wild!" :) --UWMSports (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  That wasn't my point. How do you know that is what was in the original article? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  I think Shep's point was that while you can show that an article called Cincinnati Hills League was deleted, you don't know what the content of that article was. For all we know, it was a one-sentence stub that said, "The Cincinnati Hills League is an Ohio high school sports conference." Without being an admin, none of us can know what the content of the article was.

  In any case, this is all terribly irrelevant and tedious. One article about this topic was speedy-deleted by one admin (no AfD, so no consensus) a few years ago. It was worth pointing out, but it hardly means much of anything in terms of an AfD discussion taking place in 2008. Way too much has been made of it. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  Completely agreed. We're in a weird situation acting without any consensus based precedent here, and we can't give too much value to what might have been a routine deletion of a nonsense article by an inactive admin we unfortunately can't ask about the process for it. In my opinion, these conferences should be notable because they mirror college conferences, which are unquestionably notable, serve as major organizations in local communities, group and govern high schools, which are also consistently found to be notable, and can have independent histories of team movement, etc. compiled for them with sourcing, primarily from newspapers. Those things together confer notability. matt91486 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  But they are NOT college conferences. It doesn't matter if they model their structure after colleges, the truth is they are still high schools!!! --UWMSports (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  I never said they were college conferences, just that they function in the same way. High schools are still notable on Wikipedia, so the organizations which supersede them should be similarly notable. matt91486 (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  They may be notable to you, but they have never been deemed notable yet on Wikipedia. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  ...And equally have they not been deemed un-notable yet. This is the first debate on the matter. We keep going around in circles. I keep trying to point out reasons why I think they meet notability and will have sourcing, and no one is willing to actually discuss the points with me. I'm trying to actually build up a consensus on this, but it keeps coming back to referencing the one speedy deletion several years ago with no debate as a counter to whatever I say. I'm just asking for some actual discussion. matt91486 (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It isn't equal, I think we're just annoyed that those who want keep won't acknowledge that. I'm all for discussion, but lets all be fair about it. All I've really heard is WP:ILIKEIT, WP:PRETTY, and it's WP:USEFUL. --UWMSports (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  Comment Matt is right. He, UWMSports, and GoHuskies have all made their points, and I don't see any new arguments at all from these three users. Let's see where consensus takes us. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break 2

• Deleted article The contents of the deleted article Cincinnati Hills League is available here for your convenience. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  Comment - Looks like a lot of the present articles; not all, but a lot of them. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  Reply I sadly have to agree it does look like a few of them. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for tracking it down. I'm wondering what criteria of speedy deletion it was under. It's too bad we can't ask the deleting admin what his/her rationale was. I'm still in favor of keep, since this deletion wasn't made by consensus, but it is certainly more useful to know what the article says. matt91486 (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  (EC) Comment With all due respect to the deleting admin I would have argued that that article should not have been speedied, that it deserved at least a shot at AFD. I don't see it as an A7 which seems to be the criteria used. (Although I'm not sure if the guidelines were the same at that time.)--Cube lurker (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  It does look like some of the conference articles, but not all, particularly ones like Northeast Ohio Conference and Portage Trail Conference (and probably more). I think that article should've been debated as well...in my opinion an opportunity should have been provided to prove notability. Even with this, I hardly think it serves as a precedent to delete all Ohio high school conference articles. And yes, these arguments are going in circles. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Now that I see the "precedent" that Huskies was talking about. The article that he believed set a precedent was just a list of the schools in the league. As Ben1283 correctly points out, more than half of the articles in the nomination have more information than the list of schools. NewYork483 (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  TIME OUT!!! -- Can someone explain why high school conferences are notable? UWM provided three good links with the likeit, pretty, useful, etc. What broad sports encyclopedia have you read that includes high school conferences? You'd need a specialized encyclopedia if there is anything that provides high school info. Now with that said, Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia! It should be broad and not overly specialized. Like WP:USEFUL says, there are many things that are useful and good to know, but not encyclopedia worthy. I'm failing to see where high school conferences are encyclopedia worthy. Either you live in Ohio and have a kid in a conference and know the system, or you're an outsider who will never look up high school conferences in Ohio or anywhere else. It's that simple. --FancyMustard (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  Several comments have been made to show why Ohio athletic conferences are unique and notable, even if they are not very high on notablilty. I suggest you go read this log and see what points have been made. Again, I think people are assuming notability equals high notability. But consider the definition of notability: "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." There are TONS of articles on Wikipedia of places, people, things, and events that have passed the test of notability that are NOT in published encyclopedias. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment on encyclopedic nature of high school sports conferences: Some are "notable in their own right" due to specific events involving the conferences. For example, high school sports conferences that were subjects of seminal desegregation cases or which consistently produce star athletes out of proportion to their member schools enrollment. Others are "wikinotable" because they cover so many schools that to leave them out would be a disgrace. For example, if there were a single governing body for high school sports in a country with as many high school athletes as the United States, such a body would clearly deserve at least a stub. As for state- and sub-state-level conferences in the United States, they probably all technically meet WP:N only because they receive significant coverage in the high school sports pages. Every time those conferences or their governing bodies make a major decision, it's reported in sports pages throughout the region or state, trivially meeting WP:N. However, just as we don't include every neighborhood non-nationally-affiliated youth sports association even though it receives significant coverage in the local paper every year, we don't necessarily include regional or state-level high school athletic conferences. Instead, we write articles or leave the articles unwritten and, on occasions like this one, nominate articles for deletion. The consensus, either "not notable"/"nobody cares" by virtue of nobody writing the article, "notable" by lack of a PROD or AfD, or notable or not notable or no consensus by the results of the AfD, shape and reshape where to draw the line. Remember, consensus can change. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment David does bring up a good point, as high school sports do get a good chunk of attention in local papers. After the national stuff, local stuff generally follows in the average sports section. That's a good reason for keep. But the current state of the articles are really bad, with the exception of a few. If the consensus ends up being keep, if anyone wants to work with me with coming up with a uniform format for these pages. Obviously some will be longer than others. But a general blue print for each page (i.e. Infobox, maps, how to break the article into sections, etc.). And time must be given too, because I've seen articles brought back to AfDs quick, and because the people involved are different consensus changes. It stinks! --FancyMustard (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

CommentThis sounds like a good task for Wikipedia:Wikiproject Ohio. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:LOCALFAME A subject that is notable only locally does not necessarily fail WP:N. These conferences (at least the ones around my home town of Cleveland) are coveed in the newspapers a nd on local media a lot. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 21:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this argument. Local papers also post obituaries of local citizens as well. Does getting in the newspaper make these people notable? No! --UWMSports (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

These days big-city papers treat obituaries as classified ads. They'll print a small "death notice" without a photo as a public service, anything more that isn't a "news obit" is a paid ad. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes because the person in the obituary has no notability, local or otherwise, the conferences all have local notability. read the policy before making outlandish statements like you just did. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 21:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOCALFAME is not as cut and dry as you are trying to make it to be Frank. Something like Old Man of the Mountain qualifies under your interpretation of localfame because it is known to EVERYONE within New Hampshire. You go to New York, they probably don't know about it. But high school conferences don't qualify under your definition of local fame. Unlike the Old Man of the Mountain, I'm sure only a low% of Ohioians know what the high school conference lines are. Does this make sense to you? --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that high school conferences receive extensive coverage most of the year, from conference previews for each sport, to online discussion forums, and general reporting of scores...so not the same as a one or two-time obituary notice. As for the suggestions for this to be part of Wikiproject Ohio, and the formation of a basic layout, I think those are great ideas. I did some of the layout for the Portage Trail Conference article and based it loosely on what I found on the collegiate conference articles (using a chart for member schools, for example), though the PTC article is far from a perfect model to be used. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Being an Ohioan I can say that more than a low % of Ohioans know the High School Conference lines. Obituaries are firrerent. The have to follow Biography criteria. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

UWM, low profile obits are generally written by the family and sent to the newspaper to inform locals in the community that someone they may know has died. The newspaper does this as a favor to the family to get the word out and possibly save them the time of making hundreds of phone calls. With high school sports, the newspaper sends their people out to the events. This is to enhance their paper. Big difference here. They aren't going to report John from the supermarket died unless the paper is notified by the family, they will report on the high school sports whether or not someone from the game calls them to come.--FancyMustard (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Mustard, two girls from my community died in a car crash recently and the article made the first few pages. Those girls weren't notable! --UWMSports (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's because the crash is newsworthy. Like your local news begins with two killed in local robbery. Those people weren't necessarly notable, but the way they died was notable and thus newsworthy. Grandpa dying in his sleep doesn't make the front page. --FancyMustard (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough Mustard, but there are lots of things that make local papers because it is a specialized local newspaper. They are not going to report much national stuff because the reader can buy the New York Times or something like that instead. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which is very broad. I think people fail to realize that and unfortunately many unecessary articles get through. It's a lot of work that no one will search for. Huskies made a good point about local fame! --UWMSports (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) But again, these instances of noteworthy items in a newspaper may be in for one or two days and then the item isn't covered anymore. This is not the same as a high school conference which is covered in multiple newspapers on an almost year-round basis. And as I've said before, why are the high schools notable, but an organization which is formed by those notable high schools (yes, Ohio conferences are formed by their respective member schools) is not? Keep in mind, the only reason that collegiate conferences have achieved high notability is because of the high notability of their members. Ohio State isn't notable because of the Big Ten; no, the Big Ten is notable because it contains Ohio State and other notable schools like Illinois, Michigan, Purdue, Indiana, etc.--JonRidinger (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A high school in the middle of Ohio cannot be compared to a mega-large institution like Ohio State in the collegiate Big Ten. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You missed the point...it's not about comparing Ohio State to some high school...it's comparing reasons for why something is considered notable and why it isn't. I was trying to connect the notability of high schools (already established) with notability of their respective conferences since it is the high schools themselves that get together and form a conference, just like in college. If nothing else, high school conferences are notable because they contain and are formed by notable institutions, just like collegiate conferences have achieved notabilty based on the notability of their membership. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, it's pretty clear from previous deletion discussions that public high school articles won't be deleted merely from lack of notability. We are talking about sports conferences, which are organizations consisting of many high schools but, unlike school districts, may or may not be taxpayer-funded, may or may not have elected officials running the show, and which may or may not provide direct services to students or the general public. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would venture to say that none of the high school athletic conferences are supported directly by taxpayers, any more than a college conference is directly funded publicly. They function on membership dues, which is an indirect public payment since it is coming from the school (if the school is public, of course). From what I've read as well, the leadership of a given high school conference is usually made up of the principals of the member schools who may or may not hire a separate head or they rotate who is in charge amongst themselves.--JonRidinger (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• keep all - there is an important history laid out here. Kingturtle (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  Where is the important history? --UWMSports (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  Some of the articles have histories of the conferences which couldnt exactly be placed in the conference list. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 14:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  So lets compromise with this, merge/delete stub articles (ones that mirror the deleted Cincinnati Hills League article) into main list and keep any conference that has a notable history. A notable history, not simply Conference A was created in 1955 by John Doe. Notable meaning they have a history of generating pro-athletes, have had a notable scandal, or something else of that nature. After looking at the list, not all conferences have their own page anyway, so this is not an all or nothing case. --UWMSports (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  I agree...this is definitely not an all or nothing case even though this deletion debate has made it such by including so many articles. I wouldn't be against deleting articles that are simply duplicates of the main list of conferences in Ohio (what's the point of two lists?), but I think they should first be tagged for a time as stubs as part of Wikiprojects Ohio, Schools, and Sports so they are given at least some chance to be expanded as part of a project. Perhaps they haven't been expanded because not enough people are aware of the article's existence in the first place. This needs to be a case-by-case basis. As for notabilty, there are varying degrees here, so again it is a case-by-case basis. As I have pointed out before, having all of their members (the high schools) be notable , even low notability, still gives the conference some level of notability even if it's just because of who is in it. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin This is obviously going to be a Keep or a nearly-keep No consensus. There doesn't appear to be a consensus for individual articles. I recommend you mention that in your closing remarks, so as not to prejudice any individual-article AfD that may come up in the near future. I suspect those who care about these articles are watchlisting them and will speak up in any future AfD. However, the results of this seemingly all-or-nothing AfD should not prejudice future actions about individual articles. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break 3

• Comment - My advice to the closing admin is that we make things very specific. Things need to be specific like keep such and such articles but merge/delete so and so articles. Unless the admin firmly believes in a full keep, then it is better to be specific to keep all of these articles from coming back individually. It would waste a lot of time going that route. A no consensus would be no good. In that event, I suggest the AfD stay open and several notable admins be notified of the AfD. It's too big to leave the possibility of these articles coming back here. --UWMSports (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• THREE BITS OF PRECEDENT FOR DELETION STRAIGHT FROM OHIO CONFERENCE LIST
  
• 1.) Cincinnati Hills League
  
• 2.) Greater Miami Conference
  
• 3.) Suburban League
  

Other examples from other states - Interstate Eight Conference, Sangamo Conference, Six Rivers Conference

To discuss these claims, see discussion after Arbitrary Break #3

• Comment - Greater Miami Conference was another conference deleted by an admin from the main list two years ago. Two bits of precedent provided now. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  Reply That article was closed via a WP:PROD which states: the article will be deleted about 5 days later [after the notice is palced] if nobody objects. For all that is known no one even saw the article for those 5 days and it was deleted without anyone knowing any better. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  I'm sure somebody saw it considering this discussion has been recognized by a good number of people. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  See Suburban League; Three bits of precedent now. Your move. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• This is a very recent discussion and that article was deleted in 2006. And this isn't chess or a game; it's not about moves but rather trying to gather consensus on notability. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • And the editor requested that their page be deleted One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. That's not a precedent if it was done by the author. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  Step is correct...those were both single articles. If you read the description for Suburban League, you'll note an author requested to have the page deleted. This AfD included a large amount of articles (not just one), several of which have large amounts of information on them and multiple editors (meaning more people are probably watching the pages). If JUST the Pioneer Conference article had been listed, I wouldn't have even known as is likely the case for a lot of other editors. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  You guys are fighting a lost cause. I don't see how you can keep ignoring the evidence that those in favor of deletion have set forward. There are three examples of high school conferences being deemed non-notable. Find something to the contrary. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• From Illinois- Interstate Eight Conference, Sangamo Conference
  
• From Wisconsin- Six Rivers Conference --BurpTheBaby (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• BurpTheBaby has listed 3 prods, one article where the author requested deletion, and one where there was not enough context to identify the subject. The userreq has nothing to do with notability, the A1 was due to poor authorship, and the 3 prods we know nothing about except that they went uncontested. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Prods that exceeded 5 days are listed differently. I think one of them demonstrate that. So six pieces of evidence, take away the prod+5days, equals five pieces of evidence to ZERO. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Great finds baby! -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• FURTHER COMMENT and summary of BurpTheBaby's examples: All but one appear to be either PROD or SPEEDY. The first one in the list has no easy-to-find AfD record. Here are the deletion logs:

Cincinnati Hills League - 3 November 2006 "high school athletic conferences are not notable" No AfD record found

Greater Miami Conference - 5 July 2006 "closing prod" Uncontested PROD

Suburban League 6 March 2008 "G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page" SPEEDY

Interstate Eight Conference - 1st deletion - 15 April 2008 "A1: Not enough context to identify subject" SPEEDY

Interstate Eight Conference - 2nd deletion - 25 April 2008 "CSD A1: Very short article providing little or no context" SPEEDY

Sangamo Conference - 3 November 2006 "{{prod}} > 5 days" - Uncontested PROD

Six Rivers Conference - 26 May 2006 "closing prod" Uncontested PROD

As you can see, at most 1, and possibly 0, of these are relevant as precedent.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is your evidence to negate these? You can't just ignore them. --BurpTheBaby (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

They only have value as precedent if there was an AfD or similar discussion that ended with a consensus. I'm pointing out for all to see that of the 7 deletions, 6 or 7 of them have no value as precedent, and the value of the first one, if any, is hidden from view and therefore useless here until the relevant discussion surfaces. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the admin that deleted some of those articles agreed with the prod. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Still, there was no discussion. Also, it's not necessary that the admin "agree" with the prod, only that the admin not disagree. I expect most admins are neutral when it comes to housekeeping tasks like deleting expired prods. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Time Out Guys - Lets all take a deep breath here and get back to the issues. Lets stop attacking each other. Baby, Frank relax... --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Good edit David, can you agree to that Baby and Frank? --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I was getting sick of seeing edit conflict. See also my post on the talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 04:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If this keeps up I'm going to ask an admin to either PP this page for 1 hour and/or look at the debate to see if it can be closed or if further discussion is likely to be useful. The 5-day minimum period has already passed, but I would expect admins to leave it open until it looks like further discussion won't provide any more benefit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think its probably getting to the point where you could do that anyway. It just seems to be the same users talking in circles. Maybe give it a day for others to chime in about Baby's links, but other than that, I'm looking forward to seeing this wrapped up too. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• In regards to the successful proposed deletions, I can say that if I had checked the prods at that time, I would have contested them and removed the tags. I'm sure the other people voting keep would have as well. All it takes is one contesting and then they would not have been prodded, so I don't think we can base too much off that since there isn't a set policy on them yet. matt91486 (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  They are deletions in any event. The closing admin wouldn't delete if he/she didn't feel it was legitimate. If I place a prod tag on George Washington and its ignored for 5 days, do you really think anyone is going to delete it? I think some conferences should stay if they have a rich history, but the rest of the individual pages which are basically lists anyway can be merged into the main list. --Airtuna08 (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  PRODded deletions can be restored through deletion review. From what I've seen, such requests are routinely granted, on the logic that "if the requester had seen the PROD in time, it would never have been deleted." It would be ironic if this AfD failed and next week those 3 PRODded articles got restored just because someone asked for them to be restored. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break 4 - Summary/Poll

• Not a poll, more of a summary.

In a previous edit I called this a poll. I've restored it along with the responses to date. AfD is not a vote, but I'd like to see how people stand all in a single location, rather than spread out as above. Put your name below the statement that best describes your feelings on this. Many people will not see this non-poll - the closing admin will have to look here as well as above when making his decition.

• explicitly keep all, all clearly meet the criteria for keep

• Frank Anchor (talk · contribs) · NewYork483 (talk · contribs) · your name here

• explicitly keep some as some clearly meet the criteria for keep, rest can be dealt with later

• davidwr (talk · contribs) · Ben1283 (talk · contribs) · Matt91486 (talk · contribs) · JonRidinger (talk · contribs) · Stepshep (talk · contribs) · JeffBillman (talk · contribs) · your name here

• explicitly keep some that clearly meet the criteria for keep and explicitly delete some that clearly meet the criteria for delete

• FancyMustard (talk · contribs) · Airtuna08 (talk · contribs) · your name here

• explicitly delete some which are worthy of deletion but no opinion on the rest

• UWMSports (talk · contribs) · your name here

• explicitly delete all as all are worthy of deletion

• GoHuskies9904 (talk · contribs) · BurpTheBaby (talk · contribs) · your name here

• none of the above

• your name here

The above is not a vote

Just remember when you say the rest can be dealt with later, you will probably see an agonizingly long AfD here again. Why don't we just deal with them all, even if some are keep and some are delete or merge. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I'm sure there's other things we can be doing in the middle of the night. --FancyMustard (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Smartest thing said yet here. Haha! --Airtuna08 (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

GoHuskies9904, for those articles which have consensus, then by all means let's mark them done. But if no individual article has a consensus, then it's unfair to that article to mark it "consensus: delete" or "consensus: keep." With the exception of stubbish articles, I haven't seen much discussion about individual articles. Frankly, I expect most of these that survive this AfD to come up again individually within the next few weeks or months. Those that are rightly marked by the closing admin as "consensus: keep" will have a better shot at surviving future AfDs than those that don't yet have consensus, which I think is most of them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it does any good to bring each and every article back to an AfD. They are all basically the same; a list of schools and sports within the conference. Why should time be wasted on bringing those back individually? It's easy to just delete them and have them on the central list. What you guys want to do with those unique conferences with history and what not is up to closing admin. --UWMSports (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Per what I said Way up at the top of the AfD probably a week ago, I believe a Keep All is in order. I think those that are currently stubs should be tagged as such and others with notability/reliable sources concerns should be appropriately tagged. I like the idea by davidwr about informing those involved with WikiProject Ohio as they could help expand those stub-level conferences. After at least a month or two, if nothing is done about them, then maybe redirect those specific conferences to the conference list. Maybe this opinion also supports "keep some, we will deal with the rest later," but I believe all should be kept, at least for now. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 14:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I also like the suggestion (as I have already mentioned) of including articles within various related Wikiprojects and seeing if anything can be made from them, at least for a time. If not (i.e. the article is just a duplicate list) then delete it for redundancy. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break 5 - non poll discussion continues

• Delete all: Totally unnotable conferences, much like most school listings. Why there cannot be a compact, brief description on one page, or perhaps off-wiki, amazes me. seicer | talk | contribs 04:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, over half of those nominated have more than school listings Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 14:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Only a few have more than a list of schools and a list of sports though. I don't think listing every sport makes the article better. It is pretty much common knowledge what sports a high school plays. Maybe one includes boys volleyball or something. That's the only curve ball you're going to get there. --UWMSports (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 5 didn't get a lot of love, haha. --FancyMustard (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No I guess not Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 23:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break 6: Breakdown of the nominated articles

Articles that should immediately be deleted-REVISED LIST
This is because all of the following pages are nothing more than a list of schools already found on the central list and look like the deleted Cincinnati Hills League article that is from the same list of schools:
1-Blanchard Valley Conference
2-Buckeye Border Conference
3-Central Buckeye Conference
4-Cincinnati Metro Athletic Conference
5-Firelands Conference
6-Great Lakes League
7-Greater Buckeye Conference
8-Greater Catholic League
9-Greater Western Ohio Conference
10-Green Meadows Conference
11-Lakeshore Conference (OHSAA)
12-Midwest Athletic Conference
13-Northeast Ohio Conference
14-Northern Ohio League
15-Northwest Central Conference
16-Northwest Conference (Iowa)
17-Northwest Conference (OHSAA)
18-Northwest Ohio Athletic League
19-Ohio Cardinal Conference
20-Pac 7 (OHSAA)
21-Patriot Athletic Conference
22-Pioneer Conference
23-Putnam County League
24-Southwestern Conference (Ohio)
25-Toledo Area Athletic Conference
26-Wayne County Athletic League
27-West Shore Conference

The following articles have the beginnings or a lengthy history and other valuable items within the article. These articles should be decided upon individually.
1-East Central Ohio League
2-Mid-Ohio Christian Athletic League

3-Midland Athletic League
4-North Central Conference (OHSAA)
5-North Coast League
6-Northern Lakes League
7-Ohio Valley Athletic Conference
8-Portage Trail Conference
9-Sandusky Bay Conference
10-Southern Ohio Conference
11-Suburban Lakes League
12-Toledo City League
13-Western Buckeye League

Clearly Frank Anchor's claim that over half of the articles have more than just a high school listing is not true. 70% of these articles should be immediately deleted. --UWMSports (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Side note:Northeast Ohio Conference does include a very brief history and its list is more than just a list of members: each division is different in each sport, something that is very unique in any athletic conference. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment It's still just a list. No history there. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 17:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of it is a list, yes, but not all of it is, plus those lists wouldn't be included in the master list of Ohio athletic conferences. That list would simply contain a list of the members. The breakdown of each division by sport is unique enough (and does contain an explanation) to constitute an article, even if it is a stub or of low notability. It also does have the very basic beginnings of a history in that it mentions when it was formed and where the schools came from. It could definitely use an expansion, but that doesn't mean it's just a list like some of the other articles listed. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I found this breakdown very informative. I see 10 articles of good quality on the athletic conferences. And I see the other 30 as articles that with work could be made to look like the good 10. No need to delete because they haven't reached their potential at this moment in time.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You have the following conferences in the inaccurate list. The following also have valuable items that could not be easily added to the list:

1. Blanchard Valley Conference (Lengthy introduction, list of enrollments)
2. Greater Catholic League (Lengthy intro, mention of numerous All-Ohio and All-American athletes)
3. Mid-Ohio Christian Athletic League (List of champions, lengthy informative intro)
4. North Coast League (History section recently added, possibly after you compiled this list)
5. Northeast Ohio Conference (Notable in its own way in that the divisions differ by sport, and history section as to how it was the merger of the former Pioneer and Western Reserve Conferences
6. Patriot Athletic Conference (Many notable lists of champions)

That makes <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pioneer_Conference&action=edit&section=9 Editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pioneer Conference (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedias>16 15, not 10 as you say, conferences that differ significantly from the deleted Cincinnati Hills League. Ben1283 showed and NewYork483 seconded that 53% had more info than a simple school list - a claim which i went by. Perhaps they also included leagues with just lists for schools and sports. I still maintain that all articles should be kept per my previous comments. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 17:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

List of enrollments can be found on each high school's page. List of sports is common knowledge. And breakdown into divisions can be done on main list as demonstrated already. Championships can be incorporated into high school page under their athletic section. And the 10 that I put aside aren't necessarily good. There is a big, big gap between East Central Ohio League and Portage Trail Conference. Those ten I simply left up to individual review. --UWMSports (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit that enrollments may be a stretch, but championships should be on school pages in addition to conference pages. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 18:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, only the school's individual enrollment will be found on their page, not the enrollments of the other schools, so comparing one school to another in its conference won't be easy. As for sports...while the time of each sport is the same (Fall, Winter, Spring), what sports are offered by a particular conference varies. I guess one of the notable things about the conferences to me is how each school fits in and it can provide further perspective about a school's athletic program when it is compared to the other ones it competes with. And since each member is notable... --JonRidinger (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep only those 15 articles that Burp the Baby and Frank Anchor listed as different from the Cincinnati Hills League article that was deleted. I believe these articles to have substantial info that can not be covered on the list. Redirect all others to the conference list. Scooter3230 (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Scooter, Frank, Greater Catholic League, Patriot Athletic Conference, and Northeast Ohio Conference should be deleted as well. Divisional breakdowns is simply shown already on the central list. See: Ohio High School Athletic Conferences#Fort Ancient Valley Conference. Add the remaining two articles from Frank's 6 to the list of ten to be decided upon individually. --UWMSports (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Delete the 28, weak keep the other 12 for now is a good compromise for this AfD. I would still vote delete for the other 12 if asked today, but we can give a little time for them to be turned into good articles before re-nominating them separately down the road. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This may sound like a comprimise, but i'd suggest it's not in line with policy. Deletions are based on the topic and (with the exceptions of copy vio or severe blp issues) not on the current state of the article. If the 12 can be expanded why do we think the other 28 can not be?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Because Cincinnati Hills League was a separate page from this list that was deleted 2 years ago. All of the 28 that UWM provided seem to mirror that page. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought that had already been discussed. Speedy delete, not consensus at afd. Interpretation of A7 that could be argued.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ohh and 2 years ago, consensus can change even if there was consensus.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There are now SIX examples of high school conferences being deleted. Prods can be contested, but they weren't. And even if they go past the 5 day limit, the deleting admin has to ask themselves is this article really worthy of being deleted. Airtuna said it above, if someone puts a prod on George Washington and its ignored for 5 days, do you really think an admin is going to delete it? --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that compromise too. A list is sufficient enough for those 28 conferences. Those opposed should realize it really isn't deleting the material, its still on Wikipedia. --FancyMustard (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's awfully difficult to expand the articles to make them more complete and thorough if they no longer have pages from which to expand. There must be no prejudice toward recreation to any article deleted should it be turned into a complete, encyclopedic article. I still maintain that articles are totally valid as stubs. matt91486 (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, many of the articles in the 'immediate deletion' section have more than just team lists. The Pioneer Conference article lists former members, which would not be present in the main list. The Ohio Valley Conference has teams from West Virginia, which equally would not be covered in the main list. Merger processes would be incomplete at best. matt91486 (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, keep the Ohio Valley Conference. It's unique that a high school athletic conference include two states. Matty, can you do a little research on that conference to find out if its privately run or which state runs it? I can't imagine its champions would be recognized in a state championship setting. As far as the stubs, they shouldn't be kept as is because as they read its just duplicate information you can find on the master list. --FancyMustard (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For the multi-state conferences, I don't think one state would run it. Each school adopts the rules of its conference and of the state governing athletic board, so a team winning a particular conference would only have a partial effect on their qualifying for the state's playoffs (which isn't assured by their winning the conference title like in college). In other words, it is possible for a conference like the OVAC to have state champions in both states depending on which state the school plays in (Ohio teams go to OHSAA playoffs, WV teams go to WVHSAA playoffs), just like a conference with teams in multiple size divisions can theoretically have multiple teams win the state championship from the same conference. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The OVAC should be kept specifically because it covers both Ohio and W. Virginia and wouldn't exactly fit into a list of high school athletics conferences in Ohio NewYork483 (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset Indent)

The Northeast Ohio Conference page needs to be kept as well. The fact that it uses different divisional alignments for its different sports is notable in itself and could not be copied into the conferences list. I believe that and the 12 that Huskies UWM marked as having valuable information that could not simply be put on the list. I also believe the other articles should be redirected to the conference list, not deleted. That way someone searching for one of the conferences would find the list of conferences, and not a blank page. it would also preserve the histories of the articles. Ben1283 (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on both points NewYork483 (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I made some minor expansions on the Northeast Ohio Conference page Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 23:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree on the Northeast Ohio Conference. That material can be copied over to the main list. I'm sure there are conferences all over the country that don't line up exactly sport for sport. This is nothing uncommon. As for the Ohio Valley, since its in two states, keep it. The list has been updated for me I guess. --UWMSports (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

sidenote It may not be completely unique, but it is certainly noteworthy. I have never seen a high school conference that has a setup like that at least in Ohio or elsewhere (again, many states do not use athletic conferences the way Ohio does), so I wouldn't say it's "nothing uncommon" until you can present some references to "conferences all over the country" that have that particular setup. The only thing close I have seen is in instances where some members don't offer a particular sport, so the divisions either are aligned differently or disappear all together. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not unusual for this to happen. All depends on school size, funding, interest, etc. Not notable enough to have its own page, merge the divisions to the central list. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to the comment way above me (this discussion moves fast when you're not home), I'll do my best to look into the Ohio/West Virginia conference some; however, I'm taking the GRE on Wednesday, and that's going to occupy most of my time until after that. I'll quick glance around though, and if this discussion is still open Wednesday evening, I'll look into it some more. matt91486 (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. It's not even all that apparent from the nomination just what it is the nominator proposes be deleted. Portage Trail Conference should certainly remain; it's a sourced article with a reasonably lengthy edit history, and on the basis of this article alone I would suggest that this AfD be defeated. Perhaps after this matter is closed, other AfD's can be started for the weaker articles, but on an "all or nothing" vote I would say keep all. -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Jeff, no worries, Portage is on the list of 13 that will get a closer look. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, in point of fact I am... not worried, per se, but concerned. With all due respect, this is a rather poor nomination to AfD, akin to subjecting Cleveland, Ohio and Center of the World, Ohio to the same AfD process simply because both happen to be places in Ohio. It appears that this AfD was originally about one article, but in an attempt to blunt arguments from WP:OSE every other like article got thrown in the mix. This is a deletionist's dream, and as one who tends toward inclusionism I don't like how the process is being abused in this case to try to delete a number of articles en masse. I believe AfD should evaluate each article on its own merits (or lack thereof), and not be used for a deletionist agenda any more than "other crap exists" should be used for an inclusionist agenda. -- JeffBillman (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It is hardly that, Jeff. All these conferences belong to the Ohio High School Athletic System. That is why they all had to come here together. They are part of a unit!!! It is not about Cleveland compared to small towns miles off any interstate highway in Ohio. If it was about that, how come there'd be a central list with conferences from all over Ohio? I'm not a deletionist or a inclusionist. You are speaking to the nominator, and I assure you that is not the case. There was precedent in the past of a high school conference in this system being deleted. My concern is if that was going to be deleted, how come other similar conferences exist. I've already compromised that certain pages should remain that have notable history, etc. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The best way to handle this is to close it then kick it back to a merger discussion, perhaps sponsored by WikiProject Ohio, to reorganize all these articles plus possibly a new article Ohio High School Athletic System. My recommendation: A category called Category:Ohio High School Athletic System or Category:Ohio Primary and Secondary Sports along with a main article for that category. The main article talk page can host the merger discussion. Those conferences deemed not notable enough for a full article can become redirects, without any AfD required. If, after the merger discussion, editors still feel that a given article is non-notable, they can bring it up for AfD individually. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No David, it isn't. Delete the 27 articles on UWM's list and bring the other 13 back for discussions down the road. Merger discussions go no where fast. And this isn't about a merger, this is about deleting several articles that look like Cincinnati Hills League. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Bringing back articles from the dead is harder that it looks. There's no point in erasing an article if it is going to come back in a substantially similar form. You can argue for deleting articles that merely duplicate content, such as some of the stubs whose information is duplicated in a list, since re-creating is possible. However, deleting a substantive article should only be done when there is a mandatory reason to delete like copyvio, when the substantive article is so poorly written or so contentious that "startover" is the best solution, or when no substantive article could be written on the topic and still pass AfD, which is the case for non-notable entities. IMHO if you are arguing that "13 conferences are notable, 14 are not" then any article with substantive content must either be kept or be kept for now and relisted separately.

If you are arguing that 13 conferences are notable and could have good articles in the future, and 14 are not notable and never could barring new notability, then you should close this AfD and relist the 13 individually and group-list the 14 as "non-notable Ohio-area High School football conferences." Before you do, make sure most people agree that the 14 are in fact not notable. Because this AfD has been open so long and because some of those who followed it early thought it was an all-or-none decision, it's only fair to relist rather than delete 14 and keep 13 as a result of this AfD. Because there is "no consensus" on at least 1 of these conferences, and by your own admission possibly as many as 13, it is unwise to delete them all - it's a ticket to deletion review, which would just prolong things unnecessary as the deletions would likely be overturned. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

reset indent

I would like to see all 40 go, but it is a compromise at this point to allow the other 13 a chance to be judged separately. We've wasted enough time to have this article closed as you want it. The 27 articles that should be deleted resemble no difference to the Cincinnati article that was deleted. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And UWM laid out the list well. An admin can see that and make their decision based on that. Things do not need to be listed separately. There is a reason why Wikipedia gives instructions on how to bundle articles together in an AfD. It is to save time and get everyone discussing it at once. This singular discussion may be running over a week, but if you list every article separately it could take a year! It would be a total waste of time. We can cut the fat here and delete 27 articles that is merely duplicate information to the central list. Work on the 13 that I have compromised with. If those pages are developed into good articles, maybe you guys can plan on a project to re-create the other 27+. Use your sandbox or whatever to work on those after you've provided a solid 13. Make no mistake, those 13 are in very bad shape. Those should be your focus. Those will be re-listed separately if they aren't improved. By the way, they are athletic conferences, not football conferences. Might want to rename all those pages you created:p. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break 7: The Return of the Jedi

• Suggest closing now with no prejudice to nominating individually, or in small closely related groups of the same merits. It's gotten pretty clear this can't be discussed this fashion, with people defending a particular article. DGG (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  Comment - It can be discussed here and decided which articles stay and which go. While this discussion has been long, it will be alot shorter than seeing each article come here individually. It will never go away then. --UWMSports (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  Comment I agree with DGG, we are getting nowhere fast. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  Comment May the closing admin remember that 75% of the usual suspects in here are associated with the articles. So a WP:COI may be possible. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 16:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  I don't believe contributing to articles falls in line with any of the examples noted in the COI policy. Unless you're suggesting a real world conflict.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  Comment We're on the 7th section of the same people putting forth the same deletion arguments, and the same people putting forth the same keep arguements. Not sure what else is going to be accomplished by moving to sections 8, 9 & 10.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC

  Comment - I agree, delete the 27 articles that is duplicate information from Ohio High School Athletic Conferences and Ohio High School Athletic Association that look like the former Cincinnati Hills League. I will compromise with leaving the other 13 for a closer, individual look. This is a compromise! I believe those should be deleted too, but they do have a little bit more info than the two lists the other 27 conferences mirror. They need a lot of work and can be given a month or so to be improved. Otherwise I suspect those opposed to keeping any articles will re-list them. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  And i've already typed in one of the above sections why I disagree with the premise of your proposed comprimise. I could cut and paste it again down here, then you can repeat why you disagree with my disagreement. We're not going to agree no matter how many words we type back and forth.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DGG. Close as no consensus and take this elsewhere. This is highly irregular for an AfD to take a format like this. I would suggest nominating one example from each of the categories (list-only, list-plus-other-info), let those AfDs play out individually, and then start a discussion on what to do with the whole category. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

All this and a no consensus? I think we are overthinking this. Yes, its highly irregular. But these conferences are all under the same Ohio System, therefore they had to be listed together. Something needs to come out of this AfD! Otherwise we wasted a week. Delete the 27. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 17:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, a no consensus decision would be a big mistake. I agree with Huskies; UWM broke the articles down well and that provides a good blue print for the closing admin to make his/her decision upon. After looking at the 27 articles there is really nothing there that isn't on the main list. So I ask what are we holding on to there? It already exists!!! However, I disagree that the other 13 should be deleted down the road. They have unique qualities, such as one being in two states. It's pretty cut and dry for the closing admin. Delete the 27 that look like that deleted Cincinnati article and keep the other 13. --FancyMustard (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't really solve anything. That solution would say that high school athletic conferences have notability. And if they have notability, then the articles that are team lists should be able to stay up and be marked as stubs for future expansion, because they could be given the same league histories, etc, and then would be in the other group that survived this. It's really arbitrary to say that anything written well enough by some standard at this point is OK, otherwise it should go. It's under some assumption that none of them can be improved in the future, which doesn't make any sense to me. matt91486 (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break 8 - chart of schools

It's in dispute whether being a high school athletic conference is itself clearly notable, near the border between notable and not notable, or clearly not notable. If being a high school athletic conference is clearly notable, then all articles, even stubs, should pass. If being a high school athletic conference is inself near the border between notable and not notable, then well-written articles plus articles that have an independent claim of clear notability should pass. If it's clearly not notable, then even an article that otherwise meets FA standards should fail unless the individual conference either clearly notable or is a well-written article near the border between notable and not notable. It's the consensus of editors here that the normal rules of "receives significant non-trivial media coverage equals notability" doesn't apply here, if it does, as evidenced by the fact that we didn't speedy-close this as "keep all/snow" on day one.

To help those who think school conferences are marginally or almost notable, as well as those who want to delete all which do not have an independent claim of clear notability, I've prepared this table. Please make corrections and additions.

This chart is incomplete. Please strike this line when it is complete.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus. As a side note, I'd like to point out that deleting an article about a man who is at best a kook, at worst a conman is not to delete the article but rather make sure that the man is portrayed in fair light. This includes both fair praise and fair criticism and there appears to be enough of both to construct a balanced article here.. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steven M. Greer

Steven M. Greer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no indication of the subject's notability, and the article seems to be blatant advertising to promote the subjects commercial activities, including his $995 "training sessions" [9] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I'm tempted to suggest BLP1E applies, but the subject might not agree with me, so I'll stick with the basics. This person is not notable enough for an encyclopaedic article to be written, in that multiple non-trivial mentions in independent reliable sources have not been provided to satisfy our verifiability policy. The sources that are present are mainly self-published and/or faith-based (to whatever extent). The archived OMNI piece is the best source provided, but even that provides essentially no biographical information. There really is very little salvageable material in the article as written. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - over 50 Google Books hits for "Stephen Greer UFO" suggest he's notable in his field, however kooky that field may be. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Greer is a conman or deluded, and his fans have been making trouble on the page. Fifty hits doesn't prove notability, just verbosity. Maybe it should be deleted and redirected to Disclosure Project, since that is Greer's most notable project and involves some notable but confused individuals (including an Apollo astronaut). 131.215.64.195 (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • IMO, we don't exclude articles on conmen or deluded individuals from Wikipedia; nor do we delete articles because someone's fans are making trouble. Fifty printed books reference the guy; that sounds like some level of importance to me. It feels like you are making deletion arguments based on your opinion of the subject individual and what he does, which isn't what we should be doing here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You could be right. But I don't see any publishers there that look reputable. Rather it all seems to be publishers of fringe stuff with doubtful standards. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Plvekamp (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Plvekamp (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, the one non-trivial reference is the book that Amazon says is published by "Crossing point Inc" This company does not have a website and is not listed in Writer's Market (the 2006 edition). Since this publisher then either does not exist or is a tiny operation (a self-publisher?) this is not a reliable source for a BLP on a fringe topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note, I'd also support a redirect to Disclosure Project. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• merge to Disclosure Project, this article fails WP:N, WP:BIO, etc. (per TimVickers). I happy to leave debate on whether Disclosure Project meet WP:N to another day. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. His books and their publishers are extremely iffy, and in any case his work is not notable per WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per Sheffield Steel and Tim Vickers. Not notable. 9 redirect pages? Is that usual? Doug Weller (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep As mentioned above Greer has backing of some very credible persons(Apollo astronaut or John Callahan, Division Chief of the Accidents and Investigations Branch of the FAA in Washington DC). He authored also several books which are available on Amazon.com. The users who initiated this deletion Malcolm Schosha (talk) and 131.215.64.195 (talk) have never contributed anything noteworthy to this page. They instead continuously removed content they called "nonsense", BS and were unwilling to discuss their views further in the talk sections. As a final argument in a non-existent debate they've marked the page for deletion. These are not the constructive principles Wikipedia is based upon. -- I-netfreedOm (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I hope you don't intend removing the AfD tag again if you are interested in keeping to Wikipedia guidelines. It clearly states you should not remove it. And this discussion should be about the issues, not used for an attack on other editors. Doug Weller (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Wikipedia also states that no vulgar language should be used in discussions. Citing such quotes from the mentioned users are by no means "personal attacks". This is part of the problem. If this offends you it is because on the one hand you demand complete compliance to the policies on the other hand you are silent about the mentioned violations. Why are you posing as unbiased if you've opted for deletion? I-netfreedOm (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment That's a further attack, this time on me. I note that you are an SPA, which is interesting. Doug Weller (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Subject has given talks and maintains a website opn fringe theories. He also has written books on the subject, but these do not seem to be notable outside of a very small circle of fellow enthusiasts. Unless something more substantial comes up, does not meet notability standards. --Crusio (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Yes, he is a proponent of fringe conspiracy theories but he appears to be notable since there is sufficient coverage of him by reliable sources. GoogleNews gives 70 hits[10] for "Steven Greer" ufo. Most of them contain nontrivial coverage of Greer personally and his activities and often provide some brief biographical info as well (e.g. references to him as a former emergency room physician). GoogleBooks gives 49 hits[11] for the same search. I think this does satisfy WP:BIO:" If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". In this case there is a fair amount of nontrivial coverage over an extended period of time. I would say that he passes WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep In addition to non-trivial sources noted above, one finds numerous citations of public lectures, seminars and distinguished speaker engagements in the U.S., Canada and abroad. He is a regular guest on respected radio programs as well. IMO, one must be a bit lenient in ascribing notability for an admittedly "fringe" subject matter, as that somewhat prejudical label itself presupposes lack of credibility, and thus unnecessarily weights against potentially quite valid research and discourse. Until arenas of discussion are accepted into the mainstream, they obviously will be accepted by fewer numbers than mainstream subjects, but the label of "fringe" studies is not a either/or, black or white idea. There's a continuum—a spectrum, if you will—of controversial studies about. Disagreement with the core or premise of said subject matter does not preclude allowing for serious discourse and subsequent acknowledgment from within (and without) the related field of study. One of the main points of contention here, it seems, is Greer's work on behalf of so-called "free energy" device development efforts. Critics cry "impossible", and throw him in the fringe basket, but this whole issue is tied to the subject of ET visitation, a subject that is becoming increasingly less "fringe" (Hon. Paul Hellyer of Canada, the Vatican, Sen. Kucinich), and the evidence is pointing ever so strongly that ETs' presence is real. That immediately brings forth the question of the technologies used for their inter-stellar travel to reach us, which would obviously defy "known" laws of physics, and certainly point to the use of anti-gravity, free-energy and other devices that have been heretofore labeled "impossible", and "fringe" ideas. Wikidpedia needs to nudge its least-common-denominator standards a bit, and give some credence to the serious discourse around issues that might make the scientifically-intransigent a bit too uncomfortable. There's room here in Wikipedia for both the tried-and-true AND the truly-trying.Dancingeyes (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If the subject is notable, it would be more helpful to substantiate that in the article than to write claims about it here. So please add evidence of notability to the article. So far nothing has changed there, not even the promotion for his commercial activities. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely, my belief that the article should be deleted is based on looking at the article and assessing the quality of its sources. If you improve the article, then I may change my mind. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur completely. Notability has nothing to do with whether somebody is right or wrong about something. The proponents of two mutually exclusive hypotheses can both be notable, even though at least one of them must be wrong. This article just does not establish notability, even among fellow travelers. --Crusio (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification., Crusio. That has been one of the more unbiased and informative comments I've read so far, and I appreciate your sense of fairness. I'll certainly encourage the inclusion (and contribute, where I feel qualified to do so) these cited-source additions to the article. Dancingeyes (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Greer has gathered over 500 Witnesses from covert projects in the government. Surely something is going on here. (Edit: flyboyqw 5 june 08 - On the notable subject: from the wiki notable page, Criteria 6. "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." I suppose a "lifelong member of the Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society" qualifies. Link is in the main wiki page. There. Happy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyboyqw (talk • contribs) 11:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Whether "something is going on here" or not is completely besides the point. AfD is to establish notability not The Truth. --Crusio (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: the preceding comment is the only edit of Flyboyqw. --Crusio (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So, we have a new SPA I-netfreedOm and an even newer editor whose only edit is the above. 'Surely something is going on here'. :-) Doug Weller (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please explain what "SPA" means? Thanks. Dancingeyes (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

SPA=Single Purpose Account (see WP:SPA). User Flyboyqw has made only one single edit on Wikipedia up till now (the one just above), I-netfreedOm has only made edits to this discussion, the page on Greer, and user talkpages related to this. You yourself, although in the last month your only contributions have to this subject, are not an SPA, as you have contributed to other articles on other subjects in the past. As WP:SPA explains, SPA is not to be used pejorative, but descriptive only. However, if many SPAs participate in a single AfD, that raises the suspicion of them being sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Hope this helps. --Crusio (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This does indeed help. Much appreciated. — Dancingeyes (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me suggest that "500 Witnesses from covert projects in the government" supports the notability of the Disclosure Project far more than it does this biography. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I did indeed create a new account, but not just for that edit above. I realize that this is not common practice but I am not going to be an active or permanent sockpuppet. This topic is so sensitive (ridicule, even worse at times) that I decided to create a new account with a new IP for security reasons. Don't forget that a SPA not only has negative aspects (abuse) but also positive as it is effective at protecting one's privacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyboyqw (talk • contribs) 07:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I don't understand how people can be so ignorant. Even with the latest development regarding ET life, the vatican declaration, witnesses by the 10s of thousands, coming from the intelligence community, the military, NASA, Pilots, we are still debating the ET presence. Here, we are not debating if we should delete the entry for Dr. Steven Greer. We are back at debating if ET presence is a reality. With the overwhelming evidence presented to me in the last 2 years, I can now convinced we have been visited, many times too. The work Steven Greer has accomplished in the last 20 some years is of critical importance and this entry should be updated and maintained. Another point I would like to make is that, the haters are often found to come here to delete the material. This is getting very irritating. That's the most annoying aspect of Wiki. People like myself and other people that have been in contact with Steven should be in a position to put relevant information in here. Basically, if you don't know what the heck you are writting about, stop writting and stop deleting the entries or the important text pieces. It should also be noted that Steven is a well known speakers in various radio shows and conferences, including but not limited to the IIIHS, Coast to Coast AM, The World Puja Network and various other shows.

Comment Now, what else do you need to keep this article going? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.Lalancette (talk • contribs)

Comment And another SPA.... Makes one almost willing to believe that there really IS a conspiracy out there.... PLEASE, take a few minutes to read the discussion above and the linked policies. It does not matter at all for this AfD whether Greer is right or wrong. For all I care he could be a proponent of a flat Earth. What IS important is that we establish whether or not he is notable and for that we need reliable independent and verifiable sources. --Crusio (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment The number of sources listed is satisfying now? Or do we want more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.Lalancette (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree completely with Crusio that the issue here is nothing to do with whether the subject's theories are right or wrong , but with whether the necessary sources exist to establish notability. Nsk92 and others established above that they do exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Question Perhaps to avoid a merge, there would need to be some evidence that either Orion or AERO has any importance whatsoever. Otherwise he';s notable for running the Disclosure Project only and has the same unfortunate significance that it does. DGG (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The Orion Project has collected 342 000$ from donations so far, which is definitively of great importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.Lalancette (talk • contribs) 01:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If only to show how gullible people are. Sorry, but it had to be said. This article needs more input from the skeptical community. Plvekamp (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• rather, I would say that for a topic which supposedly millions of people believe to be real, that raising only that sum of money is an excellent indication of lack of notability for the project. DGG (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment On the contrary, I believe that people are waking up to a new understanding of our true nature. Science might not be able to mesure everything at the moment, just like science couldn't see or mesure ultra-violet or infrared in the past. But time will come where we can measure these things in a distant future. Your reality is based on your understanding of the current Physics. Can I pretends I understand everything that there is? Can we pretend we understand everything there is? If so, then we fall in the same traps as our ancestors. As long as it can't be measure, it's stupid and unacceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard.Lalancette (talk • contribs) 12:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• The addition of random UFO sources such as the self-published Leopizzi Harris, Paola, Exopolitics: How Does One Speak to a Ball of Light? or the self-published Kennedy, Judy, Beyond the Rainbow: Renewing the Cosmic Connection that are not cited in the article does nothing to establish notability. We need reliable sources that discuss Greer, not the Disclosure Project, not a passing reference to Greer in a discussion on UFOs in general - we need reliable sources that discuss Greer in particular as their main subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to give a few valid scientific points to this "debate". Let's analyze the definitions of "notability" (see: WP:BIO) and see if these can be applied to our subject. The basic criteria of notability: "..he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" which is applicable because many main stream media organizations reported on him and on his "Disclosure Project": see search term ""steven greer" disclosure" on GoogleNews. We can thus conclude that he is "presumed to be notable". We now have to prove that he is "generally notable". Quote: "A person is a "Creative professional" (for example quote:"...,authors") if they meet the following standard.... "The person's work either....(c) has won significant critical attention.." Dr. Greer's most widely publicized/reported project "Disclosure Project" (which is an immaterial work/product) indisputably satisfies this premise and thus enables us to label the subject as "Creative professional". We then successfully proved "general notability". Since the subject has met the prerequisites of both basic and general notability we have concluded the proof of Steven Greer's notability. I-netfreedOm (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Well said. I totally agree. Flyboyqw (talk) 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm not completely sure, but I think I detect a foot odor here... Just a suspicion. Plvekamp (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm suspicious enough to tag him as an SSP. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment These comments are out of line and off-topic. Please stick to the issue of notability, as has been so duly pointed out to me recently. — Dancingeyes (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Your are wrong this time, Watson. By the way your accusations show that my reasoning is correct and instead of bringing some arguments against my point you attack the messenger. I-netfreedOm (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Tally: Can some-one please keep a count of what of the votes above are for delete/merge and what are four keep? A second count, separating out the single-purpose Greer advocates, also seems relevant. At the moment, I count 8 votes for delete and between 3 and 5 votes for keep, depending how you count. I realize Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Also: re. Greer's other projects: that they have raised money doesn't make them notable. I figure that the Disclosure Project is sadly notable, but is there any _substantial_ difference in goals or methods between Greer's three groups? There isn't any reason for three facets of the same thing to merit more article space. Also: if precedence means anything, I just browsed the history of hydrino theory. Here there was also someone (a Randell Mills) who acts like a conman and has his own posse of advocacy accounts. After a long debate, the result was that his article was merged into the hydrino theory page, since he wasn't notable enough without it. 131.215.64.195 (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I would suggest that we also separate out the biased Greer opponents. With this I can count 4 keeps and 3 deletes. I-netfreedOm (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Votes will not be tallied. This is a discussion, not a poll. Votes are not simply tallied by the admin who will close this AfD, rather the debate will be weighed by the discussion here with reference to wikipedia policies and guidelines. You may wish to consult Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:VOTE if you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's procedures. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and merge to Disclosure Project. At the request of the operator of the Caltech anon who has been editing this page (who I encourage to civility), and because it was one of the last I worked on before I retired, I looked at this situation. Based on a search of Google's News archive, it seems that almost every story on Greer has been the about the Disclosure Project, so I do not see any reason for him to have a separate page. His other groups don't seem to be notable: there is exactly one news item that mentions them, and that is a fringe publication. Before I retired, I had flagged this page as needing monitoring for editing from UFO enthusiasts (see User talk:Michaelbusch). It seems to be more trouble than it is worth. So, just remove this page and merge anything that isn't already there into the Disclosure Project article. Greer's advocates will probably want to copy their current description of his two new groups. This would be excessive: because of the lack of third-party sources, I would keep the description brief. I have edited Disclosure Project to reflect this. I may check back on this AfD before it is done, but I do enjoy my retirement. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Could you please share your thoughts on the following comment of the Caltech anon you've mentioned. Just to ensure the neutrality of this discussion. Quote: "I know a couple of other Caltechers who have established accounts and addressed claims like yours in detail. See User:Michaelbusch and User:Philosophus. 131.215.64.195 (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)" I-netfreedOm (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I know who the editor behind this account is, and that editor knows who I am and who Philosophus is. Unless required to do so, I will not break the anonymity. I agree with many of the views of the anon, but encourage civility. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The sources cited by Phil Bridger do appear to demonstrate notability.--Kubigula (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amanda Levete

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

Apparent vanity page, person does not conform to any of the guidelines for notability either as creative professional or as academic. Sources are not reliable or independent. Gorgonzola (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Gorgonzola (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete As it stands, it should be deleted. WP is not a Curriculum Vitae repository. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails notability for inclusion Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Why not spend a few seconds looking for sources before screaming "vanity"? Google News gives us 178 sources [12] including The Daily Telegraph regarding her as a "leading figure from across the arts" [13], The Independent on Sunday publishing an article about her saying that she has produced "some of the most technically and visually challenging architecture of recent years" [14] and the International Herald Tribune making her the main focus of an article about architects who design furniture, saying that she is "one of Britain's most accomplished architects" [15]. Google Books gets 270 hits [16] such as these [17] [18] [19] and many others. It only takes minimal effort to find out that the subject is a top-notch super-notable architect and designer. If you want references in the article then please feel free to add them now that I have done the work to find them for you. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - as Phil has demonstrated, reliable sources exist. -- Whpq (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Miron

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

Not notable  Chzz  ►  19:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, not a level at which there is great notability. Canadian youth political organizers seem to have had a number of articles (and AFDs), I wonder if there is a connection. --Dhartung | Talk 22:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable individual Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. If he becomes an elected politician at a later date, then yeah, absolutely entitled to come back. But as he stands right now, leaders of political party youth wings aren't sufficiently notable. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable vanity article. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. GreenJoe 19:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No notability as of June 2008. Article reads like a WP:BIO of a non-notable person Artene50 (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, but he should at least be mentioned in Young Liberals of Canada - could merge key points and photo to that article. Dl2000 (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator, non-admin closure. macy^talk 21:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2009 Indian Premier League

2009 Indian Premier League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable source, notability LeaveSleaves (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• The article talks about a possible future tournament which hasn't been officially announced yet. Does not contain any reliable sources supporting information given, such as dates, rules etc. No possibility of announcement in near future. LeaveSleaves (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

LeaveSleaves and I have already had a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page after he posted 2 links ([20], [21]) and suggested that these indicated that it was unclear if an IPL season would occur in 2009 (or any other particular year in the future). I responded to say that these links were about a proposal that there be 2 IPL seasons in the same year (as expressed in this link) and that the 2 initial articles stated that this particular proposal would not go ahead for at least a few years. Here is an extract from the new link:

• "I think the IPL, we will like to keep it as two seasons. A single season for the first three years, we would like to move it to two seasons and we have another season in September," said Modi.

I also stated that there was no doubt that there would be an IPL season in 2009 and pointed out that, for example, the player auctions saw teams acquire players on 3 year contracts and that there would definitely be IPL seasons in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Any number of articles, such as this one suggest as much. As for notability, if the 2008 Indian Premier League is notable, and it clearly is, so too is the 2009 Indian Premier League. I think there is little value in expanding on this point. Juwe (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Neither of these sources or any other ones for that matter substantiate the information given in the article regarding the schedule or format of the tournament. And although 2009 Indian Premier League when declared would be considered notable, at present it is impossible to presume any of the information given at present in the article. Please note that the 2008 Indian Premier League article was created only after there was an official announcement to that effect. I'm not contesting the occurrence of next season, but a premature creation of an article without any reliable sources supporting any of the information given, except that there will be a next season. LeaveSleaves (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I take back my AfD nomination, a reference has been added. LeaveSleaves (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rubén Serrano

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

All the language versions, as a short investigation at plwiki has shown, have been added with a high probability by one and the same person; all have been added as a translation of a previously prepared template and supplemented by trustworthy-looking photos, also taken by one and the same person. When doubts arise, a number of Spanish-language links are provided as sources by the same person - these do not confirm Serrano to be a writer (a few of the links are dead, one points to a webpage of a photographer, another directs the reader to a philantropist webpage). Other sources quoted in various Wikipedia editions rely directly on Wikipedia (which was the case of the article added to Polish Wikipedia), or sources such as the "author's" blog. Google (http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=pl&client=opera&rls=pl&hs=ffQ&q=%22Rub%C3%A9n+Serrano%22&btnG=Szukaj&lr=) does not return any search results that confirm Serrano's identity other than Wikipedia itself and its mirros. The alleged Selvinderan publishing house also does not exist, and the only information returned by a search query is a number of Wikipedia user accounts by that name. The entry does not meet any Wikipedia criteria.

3 of 5 Serrano's books as presented in the entry are accompanied by ISBN numbers, and they have been published by the person himself (see http://www.xing.com/profile/Ruben_SerranoCalvo , confront author's resume). The have not been sold by neither Spanish nor international Internet bookshops, they have not been reviewed by any critic - Web sources (blogs and blog-like sites) quote only a local meeting with Serrano.

All in all, this seems to be an amateur writer's self-promotional activity on a huge scale, massively interwiki'ed. A variety of users posting opinions defending Serrano pretend to be different people, although they edit from the same location (as seen at plwiki). ISBN does not mean anything - de facto anyone who is a registered publisher may apply for a batch of ISBN codes and assign these to individual books, posting them in an ISBN database. The only thing that can qualify this article as eligible for publication is mainstream distribution of Serrano's books, which is - as shown above - not happening. Wpedzich (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Note. This nom was malformed. I've corrected it (I hope) and added the AfD tag to the article Rubén Serrano. Deor (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Question. I also had concerns about notability, as I indicated at the talk page, but the creator convinced me to remove my notability tag with the following:la quincena (machine translated here), aquiyahora.es, prensaquatro.es (machine translated here), diariodirecto.com (machine translation) and quedicen.es. These all seem to be reliable sources, though as I am not familiar I cannot be sure. Each of these seems to lead to notability, although if this is all that there is it may not be sufficient to meet WP:BIO. Are there problems with these sources? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Still wondering....:) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• There ale small social networking websites or local Madrid community websites, not notable. Szwedzki (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for offering some context there. :) As I don't speak Spanish, I've been finding the nom's statement about the sources that "these do not confirm Serrano to be a writer" a bit confusing, as the (admittedly clunky) translations of the above do seem to do that. :) I feel I can only offer a "weak" opinion here, since I do not speak Spanish and cannot positively assert that there are not scads of good sources covering this individual. But I will say that if these are all that can be found, and if they are local in scale, then he wouldn't seem to meet WP:BIO in terms of multiple independent sourcing. Whether he is notable as an author or not, these sources would, however, seem to suggest that he has achieved at least local notability as a philanthropist. But lacking further sources to confirm wider notability, I would tend weak delete. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This biography has got it all: heavy namedropping as sources for inspiration, selfpromotion all over wikipedia, no significant publisher, and use of charity as a means to advocate ones authorship. --Orland (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - looks largely nn-bio to me, and smacks of self-promotion in a big way. The gawiki versions has already been deleted (disclosure: by me) - Alison ^❤ 00:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 02:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: Rubén Serrano has been deleted in es:wp because it was a selfpromoting spamming. Mercedes Gusgus talk 07:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gusgus (talk • contribs)
• Weak keep, those sources seem to be reliable, the only problem IMO is that the guy wrote the WP article about himself. It is not really good manners, but accusing him of "name-dropping" isn't, either (why shouldn't an author's article list his inspirations?), so now it's 1:1. – Alensha ^talk 13:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Namedropping can be a problem, because it might be understood by an unaware reader as a false argument saying «my/his work should be compared to the works of these». --Orland (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - massive selfpromoting article, Sir Lothar (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, spam / doubtful that he meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). --Kjetil r (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Spam + irrelevant.DutchDevil (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, selfpromoting his books.--Arco de Rayne (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete the notability of the author is borderlineat best and he abuses wikipedia rather shamelessly self promotion. Also note that in the spanish wiki the article had been deleted several times before and is now listed for deletion in most of the other interwikis as well. --Kmhkmh (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete WP:AB, possibly WP:SPAM and certainly below WP:NOTE. Gorgonzola (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, seems like self-promotion for NN self-pub'd author. So, this was The Massively Sneaky Cross-wiki Spam of 2008? Didn't we do something like this before? Do we need an international task force for this sort of cases, or are these too few and far between? How do we mop up this mess? Just asking... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment/reply. I've only seen, and fighted, one spam case like this before; that was the Ildan case, a while ago. Another writer with wide wikipedia presence is Artur Balder, but he is alledgly translated into some other languages, has a notable publisher, and he is available through amazon.
    Please also note that an anonymous IP is spreading "arguments" on the talk pages of all the other language editions, arguments already parked here. --Orland (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah! I was thinking my mind was getting swiss-cheesed and I was thinking there had been a preceding discussion about this person, but turns out I was actually thinking of the Ildan case. I see I have commented on that AfD, and I remember it was quite perplexing. Thanks! There's just too much weirdness going on in this website of ours... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. Tosqueira (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note& vote Delete! There are serious cross-wiki concerns here (see m:User:COIBot/XWiki/aquiyahora.es for more info about this). There are cases on other wikis where this was deleted already (gl:Rubén Serrano), it feels very spammy to me. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete; selfpromoting his books. Leftfoot69 (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as above. --junafani ^(Hccmqqr) 16:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as spam, self-promotion, vanity... --Nice poa (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete selfpromotion Afil (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete - A7 - Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yury Oreshin

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

Non-notable person, founder of a company we don't even have an article on, no sources, not really a biography. Only 9 unique Google hits, and nothing in Google news. Based on the article's creator's name, it's an autobiography. Corvus cornix_talk 18:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• my evaluation is that this should be a speedy deletion candidate (using template db-person, for listing) as there is very little chance of a workable article being made out of this two sentence add for his investiment company. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Fail WP:BIO. May meet the criteria for speedy deletion as well. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete per overwhelming consensus. LeGrande (or anyone else), I understand your rationale, and if you have any reliable, secondary sources from your google searching that you feel verify and confirm the notability of this subtopic of a fictional series, hit me up on my talkpage, and I'll userfy a copy of this for you so you can improve it/restore it properly. Until then, consensus here is to delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kyokugenryu Karate

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

Fails to meet the wikipedia general notability guideline since there is no significant coverage of "kyokugenryu karate" in reliable sources that are independent of SNK and its games. Most of the content of the article violates WP:PLOT and WP:GAMETRIVIA. Randomran (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as it successfully meets our notability guidelines by having plenty of google hits indicating verfiability and popularity, which are key elements of notability. Consistent per our First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on fictional topics. Consistent with What Wikipedia is. Editors are actively working to improve it (if they have not yet been notified of this AfD, then please be sure to do so per the AfD instructions: "it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Also consider notifying WikiProjects listed on the discussion page. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} ~~~~ (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} ~~~~ (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} ~~~~ (for contributors or established users). You can determine the main contributors of the articles by entering the page name at Wikipedia Page History Statistics."). Sufficient reader interest. Finally, trivia is encyclopedic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  Comment - Google hits cannot be used to establish verifiability or notability, and popularity is not notability nor can it be used as a substitute. Reader interest is not the concern here; the AfD states that notability is, which cannot, again, be judged from popularity. Finally, trivia is not encyclopedic. --Izno (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  The many sources that appear on the hits can be used to establish verifiability and notability is a subjective term. Popularity is an element of notability. Finally, trivia is encyclopedic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  Trivia as defined by the guidelines set down by Wikipedia is not encyclopedic. Notability is defined in the same method: Wikipedia defines quite clearly what notability means, and by existence of that definition, notability is not subjective. Finally, if you wish to verify this article, feel free to. You must use reliable secondary sources to both verify the article as well as establish notability, and previewing the 2,000 hits that Google gives, there are none which are both reliable (verifiability) and secondary (notability) to the source. Again, read WP:N: popularity is distinct from notability, and cannot be used to show that something is notable. --Izno (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  This article though is hardly "trivia" anyway and so is encyclopedic. The sources on Google effectively demonstrate notability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  Nowhere did I say the article at hand was trivia to begin with. I do think it rather pointy of you to assume that someone thinks this game is trivia(l) simply from the link provided, which is meant as a shortcut and not as literal meaning.
  As for the sources on Google, again, they can/have not established notability. If you think the game is notable, cite that it is so using reliable secondary sources (you have not done this either, as I requested of you). I have already replied to that point once; going around in circles is hardly productive. --Izno (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  The nomination called the article trivia, thus, I addressed that aspect of the nomination. Please do not assume bad faith or make pointed comments. The sources on Google if nothing else show potential, i.e. Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state and it is entirely reasonable that something that appears in multiple games could appear in published game guides or video game magazines. I agree that going around in circles does not help. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  I didn't call the article trivia. Please read the policy, assume good faith, and please break the habit of misrepresenting what other people are saying. Randomran (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  If it isn't trivia, then please do not cite "gametrivia" as a reason for deletion, assume good faith, and break the habit of misrepresenting what other people are saying. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  Which part of your statement did I misrepresent? Randomran (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  See below for reply. --Izno (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete lacks real world references and has no real world notability. JuJube (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no non-trivial coverage by reliable verifiable secondary sources to assert any notability. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - A browse for reliable sources for notability came up with nothing potentially useful for real-world information, so it fails guidelines. The article is also somewhat confusing (partially due to its treatment of the subject as though it were real), I had an effort trying to work out what it was talking about. -- Sabre (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Per nominator, and reasons stated in reply to Le Grand Roi. Also, violates WP:NOT#GUIDE. --Izno (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It is however consistent with What Wikipedia is and violates none of our policies or guidelines. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Using an essay to defend what Wikipedia is cannot possibly stand against what policy says it is not. Policy quite clearly says that this article is not what Wikipedia is. If you would like to argue policy, take it up at the policy pages you see fit to. They are not here. --Izno (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It does as it is an interpretation of our policy that demonstrates this article is in fact compatible with them. Policy states that Wikipedia IS not just a general encyclopedia, but also a specialized encyclopedia, and this article is therefore consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on video games, on fiction, on martial arts, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Policies are not to be interpreted, unless through the use of guidelines which do so for us, in which case, we must follow the guidelines. If you would like to attempt to make any of the essays a guideline for editing, feel free to pursue that quest as you feel. --Izno (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Of course policies are to be interpreted; that's the only way to understand them and follow them. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
            • But it's not our role to do so; it is the role of the editors of the guidelines, which are what many editors agree with and should generally if not always be followed. Reading the article, the only information pertinent in an out-of universe sense is that this style of martial arts is based off two which are real world martial arts. The paragraph which explains the connection could very easily go in the parent article(s) to this.
              From above: Again, the nomination did not call it trivia. You are interpreting a link literally, which is meant to be interpreted as a shortcut to guidelines. Whether you do so deliberately or not, I do not know. The nominator could certainly have done a better job with the nomination with this instance, I will agree.
              As for potential, it has potential until somebody gives it a reliable secondary source which establishes notability and in effect saves it in face from WP:NOT and WP:N. Potential itself can not stand as a reason to keep an article, as it is neither policy nor guideline, but the very state of the wiki itself. The potential still exists for this article, even if it is deleted, and if sources can be found for it, odds are, it will not be deleted, or be recreated. But until that time, we follow the guidelines which precurse a (un)valuable article. --Izno (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I suspect there would be some reputable gamers' magazine out there that would cover it. Does need some more out-of-universe writing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources, and this topic can be easily covered in the game article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If that's the case then we would merge and redirct without deleting. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, is a fighting style within a game, and the article has no sources, fails WP:Verifiability. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It's verifiable through the games. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Really? Those games all look like blurs to me. One shouldn't have to do original research of one's own to discover if the Wikipedia article is lying to you; it is supposed to be the other way 'round. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • A good encyclopedia should encourage its readers to go further and do additional research. Plus, we read many things daily that are original research every time we watch the news and read a newspaper article. Do we check every time if the reporter is honest? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Not only that, Wikipedia is charged with providing these sources in the article. This article does not do that. Ergo it must be deleted. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia:SOFIXIT, but don't delete it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
            • I wouldn't know where to begin. Nobody else has stepped up to do it either, so I guess that means it should be deleted. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
              • It means that we should give them more than five days to so. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
                • The article was created on Jan 2007, and tagged for sources in March 2008. No sources have been added in the last 502 days. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
                  • Notice how long this article was around before nomination compared with after the AfD closed as keep. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nominator withdrawal. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Felix Fechenbach

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

Fails WP:RS. If search for Felix Fechenbach+Nazi, google search shows only 45 ghits. This reference only mentions his name and this reference has only one sentence on Felix Fechenbach. No significant coverage multiple reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Otelemer, I have to ask you, why do you search Felix Fechenbach+Nazi? Plus, just look at how many refs there are in the German version. This shows that this passes WP:BIO, and it just needs some TLC. I'll see what I can do. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - lots of book references if you do a Google Books search. 'Nazi' isn't necessarily the best addition to the search, it won't necessarily be mentioned close by in a source. Better to mention is party, 'SPD', or his birthdate, or where he died, each of which gets a good number of hits. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to be notable and the article is referenced. One would not expect a lot of google hits. The references will be older paper ones. --Bduke (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep (for the record). Thanks guys for supporting this and adding to the article. I created a stub only, way back, due to lack of time.

Withdrawing nomination per the references provided. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Men from the Pru

Men from the Pru (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. 'Nuff said. ukexpat (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Much more importantly than failing WP:CRYSTAL it also fails WP:V. There is nothing anywhere to prove that such a film will be made. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:V, and WP:CRYSTAL since these two sources [22],[23] say that its actually a TV sitcom that is being developed, not a film. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator seems to have made a mistake in the process. Rudget (Help?) 18:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warstock

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

Ziggy Sawdust 18:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - plenty of potential sourcing, a place in Birmingham (one of the biggest cities in the UK). Notable. Rudget (Help?) 18:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep sourcing avaliable and notable.....also nominator gave no reason for the AFD, faulty AFD? Dusti^{complain/compliment} 18:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and expand No rationale for deletion given, also notable as a district of Birmingham. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• keep orps, must have nommed by mistake Ziggy Sawdust 18:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The World's Got Talent

The World's Got Talent (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not sourced, nothing is for definite; article was made too early in my opinion, and may sway it towards WP:CRYSTAL. Coming to AfD to encounter consensus. Rudget (Help?) 18:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• weak keep delete I agree that it is too soon, however, the article will appear anyway. We have plently of "pending" articles i.e. about upcoming CD's, TV shows, etc. Why not go ahead and keep this one as well, as we have the others. I would place a tag on it stating that it is a planned TV series and make sure the article is kept up-to-date as more information becomes avaliable. There is already enough information provided however to have a stable article. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 18:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete There don't seem to be any sources for this show yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This one has WP:CRYSTAL problems. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete notability? 3rd party sources?, etc Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Akim Aliu

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

I'm nominating this article per an agreement to resurrect it from a hasty speedy deletion. I fully admit he is close to the threshold at this point of his career, but I think he's on the keep side. My main agreement towards keep would be that he recently played professionally for the Rockford Icehogs and that alone satisfies WP:BIO. He is also known for being on the receiving end of one of Steve Downie's "episodes". ccwaters (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, without prejudice. He's not a first round draft pick or a top prospect and hasn't played enough games in the AHL, so he doesn't meet the inclusion criteria yet.-Wafulz (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, Article surpasses requests made in WP:BIO. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 18:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • How so? It explicitly doesn't meet the requirements for athletes.-Wafulz (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:BIO says: Sportspeople
      • • Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.
        • Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports and who meet the general criteria of multiple secondary sources published about them.[9]

IMO he meets the bolded text, unless I'm misreading something, which I might be. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 19:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • • It's actually the unbolded part he meets. He has played professionally, he has not competed in the highest level of amateur hockey which would be the Olympics or World Championships. -Djsasso (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
            • • Ooops, I misunderstood where he was competing, but still, he meets it so it would be a violation of policy to delete this article saying he doesn't meet it when he actually does. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 02:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable yet. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep While I believe people with this little pro experience should be deleted. He does actually meet WP:ATHLETE by having played professionally. And since WP:BIO is the rule for now he meets the threshold. He does however fail to meet the hockey projects guidelines for notability for whatever that is worth. -Djsasso (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • • Just curious, but when did WP:ATHLETE bump up from professional to "high-level" professional league? ccwaters (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I am not sure, I hadn't noticed that change until now, looks like someone changed it about a month ago without any discussion, I have since reverted it back to its original statement. -Djsasso (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. Hasn't played in the NHL, hasn't won any notable awards in the AHL, and isn't otherwise notable. If he gets caled up to the NHL, though, bring his article back. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - This player has yet to establish notability based on the project's notability standards. Had this player been the first player from Nigeria to make it to the ice then that in itself would have made him notable, but he is the second. If he ever makes it to the NHL, or makes it 5 or more seasons AND 100 games in the AHL or similar league if that is the highest level he makes it to then bring back the article. From a project's standpoint, making exceptions to the notability criteria is just opening Pandora's box for other players who are not yet notable. Either we have standards or we don't. -Pparazorback (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The only issue is that we do have standards and he meets them for having played professionally. WP:ATHLETE, our ice hockey project guidelines are only meant to try and stop people from creating them in the first place. However once they are created WP:BIO takes over and says he is notable for having played professionally. -Djsasso (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I do not understand the difference. What you are basically saying is this: If this article did not yet exist, it should NOT be created because he has played less than 100 games and less than 5 seasons in a league such as the AHL, as such it fails the project's notability standards. But, since someone created the article already, we should allow the article to remain because WP:BIO says he is professional and is notable. If this is the case, then our notability standards MUST be changed to reflect that if ANY player plays in at least 1 game in a fully professional league, that they are notable. We can't have it both ways. -Pparazorback (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The hockey project for the most part doesn't agree with WP:BIO and we created our own set of guidlines to try and get members of the project to follow them when creating articles. (if you look at the hockey projects guidelines, it specifically says for the scope of the hockey project). WP:BIO however is policy and trumps anything we as a project decide on, and no one is obligated to follow our guidelines. We have tried to change WP:BIO a number of times and it always gets shot down pretty heavily mostly because there are so many nuances in the various sports that the section for athletes would become rediculously complicated. There have been numerous proposals in the past to change it but it never seems to succeed. As it stands right now anyone who has played a single game is notible enough for wikipedia. -Djsasso (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The AHL is a professional hockey league, therefore it meets WP:BIO. Patken4 (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • But it's not a top-level pro league. The NHL is, and he hasn't been there yet. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Where is it stated in WP:BIO that it must be a top level pro league? All it says is that it must be "fully professional", which while a vague phrase, does mean that AHL is meets that criteria. WP:BIO will trump whatever our hockey project guidelines are. Patken4 (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Going strictly by WP:ATHLETE standards, he is notable. The AHL ia a fully-professional league as relates to policy.Jim Miller (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject meets my interpretation of WP:ATHLETE standards. RFerreira (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. He reaches the standards of WP:ATHLETE, so why is there even an argument? Rubythrees (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep — I was doing to say delete, but I saw he has played in the AHL. The guidelines set forth at WikiProject Ice Hockey, saying the league must be top-level, is not a Wikipedia guideline. The Wikipedia guideline, WP:ATHLETE, only requires that the league be professional. In fact, I think that Project guideline is harmful, since some editors may consider it the official guideline, and will be discouraged to create articles on players who actually do meet the criteria. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Per above comments. --JForget 22:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep per absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). Editors interested in pursuing a merge of this material elsewhere are invited to discuss the matter on the article talkpage. ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 23:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarian Party (UK)

Libertarian Party (UK) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. And this ties in with the on-going discussions at User:Doktorbuk/pp relating to the lack of notability rules for political parties. The Libertarian Party (UK) fail WP:N as they have no recorded history of campaigning, they have no elected representatives, no recorded evidence of significant campaigning outside the electoral context of the Henley by-election, 2008, which is their first candidature. They may be notable in the future, but WP:Crystal suggests we cannot assume they will. See the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money Reform Party debate for a comparative example. doktorb _words^deeds 17:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep Already linked to at bi-election.Smeeee (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The discussions at User:Doktorbuk/pp are still preliminary and no consensus has been reached. (And personally I think your criteria are too restrictive, but that discussion belongs elsewhere!) Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment An article on this party has been up for AfD before in March when the consensus was for deletion. See at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (United Kingdom) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Since then the party has put up a candidate in the Henley by-election, 2008. I consider this sufficient grounds for not just reinstating the previous consensus without further discussion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Commment That is very interesting, and I think helps my case, in that this party as just as non-notable as they were in March, but with the only difference being a non-notable candidate who has yet to record any electoral history in the UK. doktorb _words^deeds 18:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Those aren't policy guidelines as of yet, and I would support changing them. I would argue that participation in a current national election is grounds for an article, as it clearly draws interest because of that and because its activities are observed for the duration of the campaign in a public domain. If, after the election, the party sinks without a mention in a published source, feel free to delete. Bastin 00:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Anyone with a few hundred quid deposit can put himself up as a candidate for a UK parliamentary seat, so it is not itself a criterion for notability. What's more, that's not the way WP works. WP:CRYSTAL says that there can be no presumptions of future notability. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Unless I'm completely misreading it WP:CRYSTAL doesn't say anything of the kind. It says some things which could be interpreted that way, but that's all. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion Given the non-notable nature of the party as they currently are would you accept a merge to Libertarianism_in_the_United_Kingdom until such time as the party are genuinely notable (currently that is open to debate, the proposal is 2 years of campaigning/elections) doktorb _words^deeds 09:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support merge I agree that this is a sensible approach; indeed I started implementing it last night. I would then suggest replacing the current page by a redirect. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support merge I had no idea there was a Libertarian party in the UK, all these years here, and this is the first I've heard of it. --Doug Weller (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment That's because it was founded six months ago, as the article clearly states. Nach0king (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Indeed. The idea of an explicit Libertarian Party has been kicked around so many times in published journals that I'd think that 'British Libertarian Party' would justify an article even if there was no party by that name. Bastin 14:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • OopsCareless of me, but I still think merge is sensible until and if the time comes it is notable enough to warrant its own article. Doug Weller (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peace Cup 2009 Andalucia

Peace Cup 2009 Andalucia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article seems to be speculation because there is no references or anything of that matter to verify that this event is actually happening. Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball. Tavix (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, no verifiable info on the event yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Shouldn't Tavix tell the creator of Peace Cup 2009 Andalucia that this article is being nominated for deletion? Artene50 (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Its not a required step of the AfD process so I don't have to tell the creator of the page. It may be a good idea though, but lets not get off-topic. Tavix (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleo Sertori

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

Character in a show that doesn't even have an article. I don't see which speedy criteria it meets (it might meet one, I just didn't notice it). <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. If this were about a non-fictional person rather than a character in a show, it would be speedy deleted as an A7, pronto. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable as a standalone article. It is covered perfectly well in the main H2O article. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (non admin). This was tagged for AfD only five minutes after creation, and "unfinished" isn't really a rationale for deletion, so consensus here is to give it a chance. WilliamH (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Types of Professional Wrestling Styles

Types of Professional Wrestling Styles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is unfinished; it also lacks notability criteria. Bit Lordy (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Per don't bite the newbies and Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Not too surprising that the "article is unfinished" since it was nominated for deletion less than 24 hours after the article was originally created! May or may not turn into something useful and verifiable in a few days, but give the poor guy/girl a chance to turn it into something before AFDing. Debate 木 16:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - All this thing needs is some decent sources and maybe some interesting images. I am of the assumption that the information is factual and verifiable. I agree with Debate 100% and discount the statement from Bit Lordy that this article is unfinished since ALL WP articles to include guidelines are UNFINISHED.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.

The consensus established in this AfD is in line with previous discussions that have held that Guantanamo detainees that have not received substantial coverage from reliable sources – excluding the US government agencies involved in their detention – are not notable. The arguments made by GeoSwan and DGG here are not sufficiently strong to make me disregard that consensus:

• The secondary sourcing requirement of WP:N seeks, inter alia, to ensure that someone who is in a position to do so has made a decision whether the subject is worthy of particular note or not (because we do not want to cover every person on the planet). Few if any editors here are willing to accept the files produced by various US authorities as sufficient coverage for that purpose. The reason for this is that these government agencies, even if independent from one another, have not produced files about the detainee because they consider him to be a particularly noteworthy individual, but because he is in their detention and they have to process him as part of their official duties, whether they want to or not. In addition, due to these agencies' own involvement with the detention process as described in the article, their files are best characterised as primary sources, not as secondary ones.

• Regarding the hypothetical that, if an American were to be detained in Guantanamo, he'd be considered notable: I presume that in this case, there would be US press coverage about him, causing him to pass WP:N.

• If the article can indeed be sourced further at some point in the future, as DGG suggests, then it can be restored at that date. Per WP:N, the mere mention of the name in sources does not suffice; there must be significant coverage about the man himself. In the meantime, I second Dhartung's suggestion that a dedicated Wiki may be a better place to cover Guantanamo detainees that are not individually notable in Wikipedia's terms.

A relisting is not appropriate because there has been ample participation and it seems that no important new developments that would need further discussion have occurred towards the end of the AfD.  Sandstein  09:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abdul Salaam (Guantanamo detainee 826)

Is this a biographical article? It looks more like a WP:COATRACK to me. Either way, the article also fails as the person is only notable for one event anyhow (WP:BLP1E). coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete – Actually, it appears that this person is not even notable for one event; none of the secondary sources I saw listed in the article mentioned him by name, only the OARDEC documentation of his detention and trial, which I would consider a primary source, mentions him. If it turns out that his detention in specific is mentioned in secondary sources, then it would be reasonable to keep this article, as it is more an article about the event (his detention) than the person. But as of now, there is no notability established here. — λ (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Several other participants have cited Lambda's observation in their own comment. Well, since Lambda made this comment I found additional sources, and incorporated them in the article.
    • Andy Worthington (October 2007). The Guantanamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America's Illegal Prison. Pluto Press, pages 180. ISBN 0745326658. Retrieved on 2008-04-03. 
    • Alexandra Olson (January 23, 2005). "Detainee Has Last Guantanamo Panel Review". . The Guardian Retrieved on 2008-06-03.

• Delete per nom. Although Guantanomo Bay detainee camp is notable, it doesn't mean that every one of the 800+ detainees are notable. Notability is not inhereted. There's no evidence that this person has recieved significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, therefore falling far short of meeting the WP:BIO notability standard. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Lambda -- definite WP:COATRACK problem, and besides the subject is not as notable as the article purports to be. Xihr (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I've previously suggested that the editors documenting the detainees (and all the lawyers and tribunal judges and such) could start a Wikia to do so without notability limitations. --Dhartung | Talk 22:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Lambda and precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam. Salaam is in substantially the same situation as Ajam -- the independent sources used in his Wikipedia article don't mention him at all, meaning that the article is really sourced only to documents relating to his detention and its review, which can't establish notability. A Google search was unsuccessful because "Abdul Salaam" is a common name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have since reviewed the Olson article linked above and the excerpt from the Worthington book, both of which have been made available since my previous comment. They don't change my opinion that Salaam is non-notable. The Olson article doesn't even mention Salaam by name -- I assume that the 30-year-old Afghan hawala operator it refers to is him, but someone who had read the original article only would not have known it had any connection to Salaam. The Worthington book has only three sentences devoted to Salaam and two of his relatives, in a book which is intended to cover every single Guantanamo detainee. This isn't a WP:BLP1E. This is a WP:BLP0E -- a biography of a living person notable for no events. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• No offense, but I am concerned over what I see as a conflation here between "noteworthiness" and "notoriety"/popularity. The first paragraph of WP:BIO states:

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.". Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" - although not irrelevant - is secondary.

It seems to me that WP:BIO is clear. It does not require notoriety/popularity. It merely requires that there be something unusual enough to deserve attention. There are lots of topics that merit coverage here where there is no, and never will be, any press coverage. If the wikipedia is going to be comprehensive it is going to have to cover lots of topics that aren't notorious/popular.

Thought experiment -- if the paragraph Worthington wrote about Abdul Salaam had been written about an American would it even occur to anyone to challenge it? I suggest it would not. (1) Being picked up in a random sweep; (2) held for years in a secret detention camp; (3) released years later, with no explanation. If we had an article about an American in this position, I doubt anyone would challenge it. Aren't all the captives in the same position as Abdul Salaam? No. Only one other captive's memos justified his detention because he worked for a hawalla. Hawalas were suspect because there was an unsubstantiated meme floating around that the funds that supported 9-11 hijackers had been transferred to them through a hawala called al Barakat. However the 911 Commission found that all the funds transferred to them had been sent via ordinary US banks.

WRT BLP0E Respondent, above, describes Abdul Salaam as someone known for zero events. Most of BLP is devoted to protecting the privacy of the subjects of our articles. The BLP1E sections seems to have been grafted on as an afterthought. And I think this discussion illustrates a weakness of this section. Deciding when something is just one event, or several events, is an entirely POV judgment call. I listed four five events the references document. I'd be grateful if respondent stated why the events I listed weren't separate events.

Taking BLP1E seriously? -- In another discussion another wikipedian suggested that the article on Tony Blair be merged with the George W. Bush article -- because no one would have ever heard of him, if he hadn't supported Bush in the invasion of Iraq. Their joke makes a good point. There is no good absolute dividing line between what should be considered multiple events, instead of one event. I think this section is so open to misinterpretation it should be removed from BLP, where it doesn't fit, to some other place. It is so open to misinterpretation I question whether it belongs in policy space at all. Geo Swan (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep -- Disclaimer, I started this article.

I disagree that this article is a violation of BLP1E.

• Captured in a routine sweep of his local bazaar in May 2002.
• Sent to Guantanamo in October 2002.
• Faced the very last of the 558 CSR Tribunals in January 2005, where he was accused of transferring funds for al Qaeda.
• His CSR Tribunal was particularly described by a DoD spokesman -- who explicitly obfuscated his name. Keeping the identity of captives secret is a serious violation of the Geneva Conventions.
• During his first annual Review Board he faced only four factors justifying his detention. This is very unusual -- unlike what other captives experienced. Practically every other captive faced more allegations during their annual reviews than they did during their initial CSR Tribunal. Most faced at least twice as many allegations. One captive faced six times as many allegations second time around.

Please bear in mind that the Guantanamo captives were described as "the worst of the worst", and various similar description, by senior cabinet members of DoD officials. I suggest that anyone, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who almost everyone will agree is one of "the worst of the worst" merits coverage here.

And, I suggest that other captives, who faced allegations justifying their detention that may not clearly establish they were "the worst of the worst" also merit coverage. I don't think it is our role, as wikipedia contributors, to decide whether the allegations are credible for our readers. I think our readers are entitled to reach their own conclusions about the credibility of the allegations, and to reach their own conclusion as to whether those allegations really support descriptions like "the worst of the worst".

Some commentators above have made comments that suggest they may not understand that there are multiple separate, independent agencies here. Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO), set up in early 2002, was responsible for the captive's interrogation, detention, medical care, mail from home. The Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants (OARDEC), set up in July 2004, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Rasul v. Bush, had the responsibility of formally confirming earlier secret determinations that the captives were "enemy combatants". Part of OARDEC's responsibilities was to independently review the evidence against each captive, and prepare "Summary of Evidence" memos, for the officers charged with making the recommendation. And in doing so they reviewed reports prepared by the CIA, FBI, CITF and the office of DASD-DA. It is my opinion that this fully satisfies the policy requirements that sources be "independent secondary sources". I know some people think they don't satisfy the requirements because they are not "media sources". But this is a misconception. The policies don't require sources be "media sources".

WRT WP:COATRACK -- it lists about a dozen different criteria. I've reviewed its recommendations recently, and I can't honestly see that this article lapses from any of those criteria. One of the criteria in COATRACK talks about "wongo juice" -- the article that is nominally about one thing, but quickly diverges, and spends most of its bytes talking about some other topic, which the COATRACK author called "wongo juice". Now, if this article were to diverge from talking about Abdul Salaam, and spent most of its bytes talking about Guantanamo detention, in general, then Guantanamo detention would be the "wongo juice". But I don't believe this article does this. Yes, there is material in this article that is similar to other articles. But, I regard that material as necessary context. You will find other related sets of articles, like the articles on the chemical elements, also have material in common. It would be possible to strip out all common material from the articles on the chemical elements -- at the cost of leaving them essentially useless for anyone who didn't already have a PhD in chemistry.

WRT WP:NOTINHERITED -- I believe this challenge is based on a misconception. Challenger acknowledged the Guantanamo camp is notable. And, similarly, San Quentin, Devil's Island and Leavenworth are notable. There are differences between the captives in those other facilities and the Guantanamo captives. (1) The captives in those other famous facilities have not had Cabinet members repeatedly label them as "the worst of the worst", "very bad men", and "terrorists"; (2) Captives ended up in those other facilities through the normal, routine, well-established, well-understood procedures of a criminal justice system -- one with established rules of evidence and established rules of procedure. When there is something unprecedented about a captive in one of those other facilities, we have an article about him or her. And, when there is something outside of the routine about one of the captives in one of those other facilities, we cover them. The USA imprisons thousands, or tens of thousands of individuals charged with, or convicted of murder. And we have articles about practically none of them. But we have articles on guys who stand out, like Willie Horton or Rubin "Hurricane" Carter. I've written about this further, here.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Further to COATRACK -- this document doesn't, generally, recommend deletion as the answer to a perception of COATRACK. Geo Swan (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, no evidence of notability as demonstrated by the lack of coverage by multiple and non-trivial independent publications. RFerreira (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd appreciate an explanation of this phrase: "...coverage by multiple and non-trivial independent publications." I thought I was familiar with the relevant policies. I don't recognize this phrase. If it is from an existing policy I would be very grateful to have that passage drawn to my attention. My google search doesn't find the phrase "multiple and non-trivial independent publications"' anywhere on the project. Geo Swan (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • No reason to Google the phrase. This little box sits on the top of the WP:BIO policy page:

This page in a nutshell: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Notability criteria also must be met for a person to be included in a list or general article; in this case, however, the criteria are less stringent.

• Note to closing admin -- Please note that the paraphrase of policy offered above is distinct from the direct quote from the WP:BIO guideline. Please note that I have explained why I believe these references fulfill the requirements of policy, and no one has offered a counter-argument. It is often repeated that these discussions aren't votes. It is my understanding that these are supposed to be meaningful discussions, where there is a civil exchange of opinions -- working towards reaching a consensus. It is my understanding that closing admins have the authority and responsibility to discount and ignore opinions that do not, in their opinion, comply with policy. Geo Swan (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I am not sure how WP:BLP1E would apply in this case, because the person doesn't seem to be notable at all amongst the crowds of hundreds of other detainees, and as mentioned by Lambda this person isn't even mentioned by name in secondary sources. I think Dhartung is on the right track with the suggestion of creating a Wikia website for this type of thing, if that's what you're interested in. JBsupreme (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I've asked this commentator to help me out by helping me understand what I should have done when I found additional references that specifically mentioned Abdul Salaam -- so he or she would have recognized that Lambda's criticism no longer applied. Geo Swan (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Requesting the period of this discussion be extended to allow more time for debate. Geo Swan (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you Geo Swan for your message. I have reviewed the available sources and my belief remains that this person does not meet WP:BIO criteria. Sorry, JBsupreme (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep because the article is probably sourceable further from sources in the country & languages concerned. I am saying this on the presumption that all of them will be regarded as martyrs and heroes by their supporters & subjects of interest from their countrymen. Our excluding this probably represents systematic bias. I can understand people wanting to delete them until this can actually be established, but I think our information should be preserved here in the interim. That there are hundreds of people in the same position is irrelevant to Wikipedia--if there's any generally accepted principle here, it's NOT PAPER. There is more individualized information than would fit into a list. But I do suggest that some of the common elements be removed--they do give an unfortunate impression of coatrack, and it would help to avoid that.. DGG (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. I will be happy to restore the content in userspace if anyone is interested in salvaging some of it or transwikying.. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Morretti SR4

Morretti SR4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A fictional weapon from one video game with no other notable qualities can be included in a list in the original BF2142 article, but certainly does not deserve its own article. Ops101ex (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. --Jaewonnie (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete wholly unsourced, much of the article is Gameguide information. As suggested by WP:GAMETRIVIA, weapons lists or articles on a single weapon/game concept are not considered important to the understanding of the game as a whole. "Vote" changed to Transwiki, see below. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 20:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - clear violation of WP:NOT#GUIDE. Asserts no notability either. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as verifiable topic, only created a few days ago, so Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. Articles on single weapon/game concepts ae considered important to the understanding of the game as a whole as practised by the hundreds of editors who create and work on these kinds of articles. If as the nomination suggests it could be included in some context with another article, then we would merge and redirect without deleting in the worst case scenario. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment No sources assert notability, also, creation of certain types of articles does not equate to Consensus. The weapon itself is not a major game mechanic, that is to say, it itself is not crucial to interacting with the game. It is one of two primary weapons of one out of four character classes. Furthermore, it provides no new or notable dimensions of interaction (For a positive example, see Gravity Gun), it is essentially "just another" Sniper Rifle. Therefore, it is not an exception to the Unsuitable Content guidelines under WP:VGSCOPE. I do agree that this is valuable information, however, so I change my "vote" to Transwiki. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 19:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect, had a look for reliable third-party sources to atest notability, but can't find any. As said, it doesn't appear to be a major game mechanic, its just another standard game weapon. Its also a breach of Wikipedia is also not a game instruction manual. It may be a reasonably useful search term, so it could be worth a redirect. If not, delete.-- Sabre (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Headshot - does not show where it has had significant, independent, reliable coverage (WP:N) and does not present any out-of-universe context (WP:WAF). Suggest transwiki to appropriate gaming-specific wiki. Marasmusine (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki, To wikia.--SkyWalker (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yet, it is notable through a real world audience and can be verified through reliable sources. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't have any sources at all. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • They're out there, but just need to be added. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It doesn't have any sources out there, either, not the kind we can use. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • We can use the game's instructions, published game guides, and references in magazines. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Or, we could let people who want a gameguide do their own Googling/experimenting with the buttons on their game. "I wonder if I hit quarter-circle-back...?" Wikipedi has rules against "How To" and "GameGuide", sorry. Your argumentation reminds me of the NRA, who oppose even the most reasonable restrictions on guns out of fear that the next step is government agents kicking in doors and confiscating all the guns in the US. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn, non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 11:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rise Against's fifth studio album

Rise Against's fifth studio album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely violates WP:CRYSTAL. Page has been around since last year, but page now doesn't expect album until 2009. When a title and tracklist comes out, then we can include this. Spell4yr (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC) I don't think the sources are particularly great overall but consensus is against me and it's not worth keeping this up for the full time. Someone please close this; I'm not familiar with the process of nominator-withdrawn AFDs. Spell4yr (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Instead of deleting it, let's just keep the article and when there's an announced title, we can just change the article name by clicking the "move" button. I did that when there was an announced title for The Offspring's upcoming album. Alex (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Or we can recreate it when the album is titled ... right now we have nothing but crystal ball content, and typically when that happens (such as Untitled Ashley Tisdale album) it ends up in AFD. Spell4yr (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Normally, untitled albums don't get an article because they usually don't cite sources. However, this article cites several. I agree that the article should stay and be moved once a title is announced. TN‑X-Man 17:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep Doesn't seem to violate WP:CRYSTAL given the reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Keep, rename when title is decided/released. Extensively sourced. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:N for the amount of sourcing involved. Nice job guys. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 23:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep per new, reliable sourcing. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ahar rug

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

A non-notable type of rug. The article is written like an advertisment. Tavix (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, unsourced, no assertion of notability. Also consider Hariz Rug for deletion. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 20:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

13,000 google hits, rug is detailed in numerous authoritive books on the subject, quite feasibly could be expanded into a full article. Article was proposed without consulting the creator originally. I can't really be bothered to answer here as it is a clear time waster. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC).

• Reply 13,000 Google hits?! If you take a look, there are slightly under 1,000 hits. I see you have added some references which is what I was after originally anyway. Tavix (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Seems to be a notable type of rug, as per the references provided, and I quite frankly cannot see how this could be seen as an ad. Meets WP:N and WP:RS. Could use a bit of work, but the groundwork is there. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars (script)

Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars (script) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recreation of deleted article . Very little sourced information on the script itself - nearly all references refer to the released film, and most of those are not from reliable sources - majority of article is unsourced original research. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Although my first instinct was to believe that this was a hoax, I can see that it was the working title of a screenplay by George Lucas and another writer for a possible sequel; as such, it's relevant to the history of the Indiana Jones franchise. If it had been written by someone not associated with the film, that would be different. Mandsford (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, saying it is a recreation of deleted material is not really fair, the redlink is from a redirect deleted for being an implausible misnomer. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - No need to have a separate article. All of this material could easily be incorporated into the main article about the film. --Hnsampat (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I dunno... there's enough here that doing that would be sort of clumsy. I assume we'd basically have to eliminate the plot narrative to make the merge work, right? (I'm personally leaning weak keep on this right now.) Townlake (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• DELETE Working titles change and scripts get rewritten. Nothing special here. A brief mention of the working title at the movies article will suffice. ccwaters (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Better yet, work a mention of it at Indiana_Jones_franchise ccwaters (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge as this appears to an "in progress" draft, rather than a distinct product. It's true there's a lot of text in this article, but most of that is taken by a plot summary which is very much overlong for our purposes. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete An unused, early draft of a movie script really isn't notable enough to get its own article. In addition, pretty much all relevent information regarding this script's role in the development of Indy 4 is already covered in the article for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. In fact, really, the only information here that isn't in the other article is the overly long, unsourced, and quite possibly made up plot summary. There's no reason for this article to exist Rorshacma (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge C'mon, not really unscourced, is it? Plot can't be fabricated since a link to the actual script is provided. Nothing about the original screenplay's evolution or Lucas' creative thought process (or even the debate between Spielberg and Lucas) are present on the Crystal Skull page. (Though I do agree the plot is overly long, and I have tried to trim it down...)Dipolemoment (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)— Dipolemoment (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • The Crystal Skull page talks in length about the "Saucer Men" script, Lucas' idea of basing the fourth film on 50's B-movies, and the fact that Ford and Spielburg were against his original ideas. And that's all that really needs to be said about a canned draft of a script. In addition, as the opening post here already mentioned, the majority of the sources cited in this article are ones referring to the completed "Crystal Skulls" film, and have nothing to do with the "Saucer Men" script. In fact, the entire "Reception" section after the first paragraphs is talking only about the reception and reviews of "Crystal Skulls", and thus I don't even know why its even there.Rorshacma (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment I believe a cursory inspection demonstrates this untrue, but we've said our piece, let's leave it to others to put in their two cents.Dipolemoment (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This was really fascinating stuff. I love to see "behind the scenes" of things. I just wish there was first drafts of something better, like Star Wars or the first Indiana Jones that would be totally cooler! Youcallhimdoctorjones (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC) — Youcallhimdoctorjones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete per not actually being a real movie. A mention at Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (the one that is apparently based on this) or Indiana Jones franchise would do, as long as it is backed up by actual proper-like sources (I refer to the nom's comment that almost all sources are to do with IJCS). -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added references from CNN, the Associated Press, Entertainment Weekly and the New York Daily News. Dipolemoment (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. As much as I'd like to keep this as final proof of George Lucas's insanity, the undue weight principle applies. WillOakland (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. ColdFusion650 (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• DELETE! Obviously a HOAX! Did anyone actually believe this?? Scifigeek314 (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC) — Scifigeek314 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• WEAK KEEP or MERGE i think it was interesting to read, with a lot of material not in the indy 4 page. if it were an original draft of macbeth or star wars i'd say keep it, but indy 4 is not so relevent (and wasnt such a good movie anyway) but at least stuff about Lucas' movie-theory in the original script should be kept and maybe a watered plot but the reception should be changed or removed Princess organa (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)— Princess organa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep/Merge to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Seems like the topic is important in the development of the movie and can be reliably sourced so some extent, personally I don't think much past a couple of paragraphs in the development section of the main film article is necessary although that's really an editorial decision not for AfD. 21:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest9999 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 3 June 2008
• Please Keep! I just put this website up two days ago and I've been fighting for its life ever since. I've taken everyone's suggestion so far. I just edited the "Reception" section so that now it refers exclusively to the reception of the original script (not the movie) and it doesn't repeat any reference from the movie's page. The main argument seems to be that George Lucas' original script is irrelevant or trivial, but according to Wikipedia rules and standards (containing multiple reliable sources) it is a totally legit entry. I mean, for goodness sake, it is George freakin' Lucas! Dipolemoment (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - no need to "vote" again - it doesn't get counted twice, and you've already made your feelings plain. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment to your Comment - dude, I didn't assume a bot was counting votes, just wanted people to know I'm entertaining their complaints and recommendations. ....hmmm, but if you want to count votes, drumroll please!... 5 votes for KEEP, 5 votes for MERGE, 5 votes for DELETE (and that's not including my second vote (even the President gets to vote for him/herself once) but it does include the dork who thought it was all a hoax)... Exciting isn't it?! You and me, head-to-head! Brahma vs. Shiva! Dipolemoment (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVIL. Calling people "dorks" isn't going to sway anyone to your argument. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment to your Comment about my Comment - I see your "Consensus" and raise you WP:NOTDEMOCRACY ...and, dude, the dork comment was a joke, chill! :) Dipolemoment (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to help you out because I see you're (cough) new here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Note Dipolemoment, the (re)creator of this article, was blocked as a sockpuppet [24] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete All the information is in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. We do not create articles for every draft of the script of every film. So where's the article on Frank Darabont's City of the Gods script eh? Shame people would rather write an article than check to see the info is already there. Alientraveller (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Someone has created it here Indiana Jones and the City of the Gods (script). Please consider deleting this article as well, if the nomination for deletion is approved. Note that both the "(script)" article have redirects pointing to them. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as all pertinent information is either already in IJatKotCS, or can be merged into it. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per MightyWarrior and Alientraveller above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Early development script which is not encyclopedic in itself but meaningful when discussed within the history of the finished film. Moreover, this is a WP:CFORK. Gwen Gale (talk)
• Delete This is already mentioned in the article (and at excessive length yet), as it is at best an early draft of the current film. If Lucas decides to publish this script for some reason, then it could be worth an article. But him publishing this is not likely. It's not like Arthur Clarke or Harlan Ellison situations. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Alientraveller's remarks. Expand the section within the movie's main article if need be, but it's not necessary to have an article fork. csaribay (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CFORK and nom. --Ave Caesar (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roland System-100

Roland System-100 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a clear, biased advertisement of a product. It is not even remotely significant, every piece of equipment ever used by professionals is not significant. If so, almost every synth would have to be included on Wikipedia. It is not encyclopedic, and has never been throughly cleaned-up Scapler 15:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Roland Corporation. Blatant advertising, but a legitimate search term for a notable synthesizer manufacturer. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• The corporation is notable, but this particular product is really not. If it is relevant and noteworthy, than almost any product made by any company can have its own article. Just my two cents. Scapler (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - It's not blatant advertising when the product isn't even sold anymore. It hasn't been on the market for almost 30 years, in fact! The article, though extensive, isn't really written from an encyclopedic point of view, but from a vintage synth fan's point of view; it thus doesn't really do a good job of explaining to the non-enthusiast what was genuinely significant about this product. There's the bones of a good article in there, though, and there's plenty of information out there to make it that. This was a synth used by a fair number of well-known musicians and a better treatment of that would help make it a useful Wikipedia article. Parenthetically, I note Wikipedians often stating that something's 'advertising' when it's really not - it's just written from a enthusiast point of view. We should stop using 'advertising' for that - it's an assumption of bad faith and justifiably irritates people who just don't know Wikipedia's house style yet and who were honestly trying to write a good article. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per morven; a synth that has been used extensively is a notable instrument. There is lots of precedent with individual pieces of equipment getting their own articles, whether synthesizers or computer chips. The article needs cleanup; but I agree it's not deliberate advertising. -- phoebe / (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Goodness, this is a late analog synthesizer that can be heard today on tracks produced by Depeche Mode, Human League and Erasure. The legendary Tangerine Dream used a System 100 on their 1978 album, Cyclone [25]. Why would we want to delete the article? There are some issues with the "hobbyist" tone of the piece, but those are not to be solved by deletion. Keep and improve. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)