Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 17

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daisha Anderson

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

Non notable, apparently minor character from Holby City. Originally listed on copyright problems, I reverted to the only non-copyvio version, and was left with a single sentence that asserts no notability. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of characters in Holby City. Character is non-notable, short term, and hasn't even appeared in the show yet. Frickative (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable, even in-universe. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Midorihana^~iidesune? 02:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above comments. I don't even think it deserves a redirect. Billscottbob (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable. Tiptoety ^talk 05:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Dreamspy (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mumzy

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

Musician bio with lots of broad unsourced claims and peacock language, but no actual references, even though claims major international exposure. Fails WP:V; thus, fails WP:MUSIC. Orange Mike | Talk 23:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - appears that he may be an up and coming musician. But there doe snot appear to be any significant coverage about him, although his name is mentioned here an there, so no reliable sources. He has not yet released an album, and the the claimed promotional song hasn't charted, not can I find any evidence of it being played in regular rotation. So none of the WP:MUSIC criteria that might be applicable seems to be satisfied. -- Whpq (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, there doesn't seem to be any non-trivial third-party coverage of him yet. Not convinced he meets WP:MUSIC notability criteia. If kept, the article needs serious cleanup, also. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gadar (Myst)

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

Contested PROD. No evidence of real-world notability, no out-of-universe information. Does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) Fritzpoll (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 03:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 11:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:FICTION, not notable outside of the Myst universe. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article does not have the reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slige

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

The reasoning used for Doom Builder, another Doom editing utility, seems to apply here.  Prod was contested apparently on the basis that Slige can be compared and contrasted with other Doom editing utilities.  I am a lifelong Doom fan, but these programs are never going to meet the notability standard for a general-interest encyclopedia.    Xeriphas1994 (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 03:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - although I can find download links and blogs, I cannot find any articles about Slige itself, so there are no reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree. Deb (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable software. As above, I cannot find any articles or sources about this software, other than trivial download link style coverage. Not surprising, given how niche a market this software caters for. Still, apparently not high-profile enough to meet the WP:N criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Avon Nova Westem

Avon Nova Westem (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about fictional character lacks references to establish notability. Also lacks out of universe content to satisfy WP:FICT. PROD removed without comment by page author. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete non notable character TheProf | Talk 00:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - the only google hits for this character are wikipedia related. That's all three of them. -- Whpq (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Only 3 ghits, all Wikpedia related. [1] Appears to be a hoax or perhaps a fanfic character. Edward321 (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no third-party sources whatsoever. An exceedingly minor and unnotable character, even if this isn't a hoax. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jenna von westem

Jenna von westem (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about fictional character lacks references to establish notability. Also lacks out of universe content to satisfy WP:FICT. PROD removed without comment by page author. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete non notable character TheProf | Talk 00:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources, and only wiki related results from the two hits on google -- Whpq (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Only 3 ghits, all Wikpedia related. [2] Appears to be a hoax or perhaps a fanfic character. Edward321 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no third-party sources whatsoever. As in Avon Nova Westem, an exceedingly minor and unnotable character, even if this isn't a hoax. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was Merge and Redirect to Lonelygirl15, consensus is that only notability stems from that and fails the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miles Beckett

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

Non-notable, except for his editing of Lonelygirl15 saga. Should just be a redirect there. Jmlk17 22:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Lonelygirl15 then. You could have just placed a {{merge}} tag on there instead of {{afd1}}. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Lonelygirl15. Weasel words & unverified claims + questionable notability; Best to redirect it towards the one thing the subject is notable for. -- Experto Crede (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect, as above. If he ever creates something else that is notable, we can recreate this article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was merge to model horse showing. Done. Neıl ☎ 12:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo showing

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

Article is not about an encyclopedic topic but rather is a long description of a term. No references are cited and seems to be completely WP:OR. Page is orphaned and does not assert notability of term. Reywas92^Talk 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Model horse showing as it appears to be a form of it. -- Whpq (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• As above, Merge and Redirect. A particular form of the art form in question, appears to exist but doesn't appear to be distinct enough to need a separate article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was Delete all, consensus is that the articles fail the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paracoccidioidomicosisproctitissarcomucosis

Paracoccidioidomicosisproctitissarcomucosis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the albums for the band:

Satyriasis And Nymphomania (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Aromatica Germenexcitación en Orgías De Viscosa Y Amarga Putrefación (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Re-creation of deleted material. No notable label, no tours. Google searches yield only blogs, mp3 download sites, and lyric pages. It fails WP:MUSIC. Delete Undeath (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment How close is this to resembling the previously deleted version? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Reply Really darn close. Exact same except for a new album and demo. Undeath (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete then as a non-notable band, failing WP:MUSIC entirely. If not for the album pages, I'd go ahead and say speedy delete A7. Cases like this show why I think that albums should be speediable (at least in cases where their artist also meets A7 criteria). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete All, while the band name is certainly amusing, they don't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Many of the arguments from the previous AfD discussion still seem to apply here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC).
• Strong Delete Fails notability. The only external link provided is to an YouTube profile page. Also satisfied criteria for speedy deletion being the recreation of a deleted page-Ravichandar 03:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Hess (basketball)

Karl Hess (basketball) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no assertion for notability or reliable sources given. I can't this ever expanding beyond this stub. Metros (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedily delete as inherently non-notable: fails WP:BIO. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think this is a speedy candidate. Basketball refs can be notable, and Hess is a ref in what is arguably the premier college basketball conference in the US. He does get a lot of mentions in the news, but I haven't really looked through those yet to see if there's anything substantial. Zagalejo^^^ 17:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Hess is also Liberty University's all-time leading scorer, for what it's worth. Zagalejo^^^ 17:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kubigula (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - The subject doesn't seem to be notable at all. --clpo13_(talk) 22:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - clearly not notable Dreamspy (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gordon Hannah

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

No attempt asserting notability. WP is not a memorial site. Camillus (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Non-notable; handful of ghits. Houseboater (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, it's an obituary, not an encyclopædia article. Minimal number of Ghits, including none on the ALP site (where he would certainly be if he had any notability), leads me to believe he's not notable either. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was Delete as non-notable with only trivial coverage. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wire jacket

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

This looked interesting but the only refs are fictional, so I looked for some real refs, but most of them seem to track back either to Wikipedia or Fu Manchu. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Question - So, this device is purely fictional? --clpo13_(talk) 21:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - I suppose it doesn't really matter if it's real or not. As Orange Mike said below, it's not notable either way, but it could be fixed up. Maybe. --clpo13_(talk) 02:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This device is real. Just google it. There is a site dedicated to torture mechanisms and it is there.(i forgot the url) Anyway, this is not a fictional work, it just requires some work to find a source. Undeath (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Sure, it's mentioned in a Fu Manchu book or two and one of the Flashman novels, but I can't find anything reliable about it. I was able to fix rat torture, but don't have a lot of hope for this one. --Dhartung | Talk 01:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable torture device (real or fantasy). --Orange Mike | Talk 01:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable real or fictional torture device. Edison (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with Fu Manchu or related article and redirect. --Ted-m (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I've added sources to the article. See if they are good or not. Undeath (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Wasn't this nominated for deletion in 2006? If so, why isnt' this stated as the second nomination? Undeath (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep, sources have been provided to establish notability. Just because an individual is not on google does not mean they are non notable so have discounted the final delete opinion. Davewild (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chaim Elozor Wax

Chaim Elozor Wax (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

DELETE - content purely anecdotal, no supporting evidence or meaningful references, absolutely non-notable. Smerus (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't Delete - Both of the reference books are available in any store, I have one of them also in pdf, give your e-mail address I should be able sending it to you. Next time please be carefull before attacking. It is a very important article, and is still not complete. Shoteh (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep until proven guilty of hoax. Library reference has been given. For someone born in 1822 don't expect much on internet. Assume good faith. No consensus closing is OK with me. greg park avenue (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Two perfectly valid references have been provided to satisfy WP:BIO. I have difficulty in understanding why the nominator and another editor are dismissing these. Have you checked them and found that they don't actually support the article content? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The references (if such they are) cited are not clearly defined and are hence not accessible to me. Besides which, both would appear to be in Hebrew. Neither seems available in the British Library. The fact that they are unavailable, and, if they exist, in a little known language, militates against the criteria in WP:REF and WP:Verifiability; and in itself supports deletion. Your use of the phrase 'perfectly valid references' in this context seems, at least, debatable. But perhaps you have checked these references yourself and found that they do support the article? If so, please tell us.Smerus (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't read Hebrew either, so I have to assume good faith on the part of the article creator and any other editors who do. There's no requirement for sources to be accessible to everyone. However I do agree that the references were rather poorly cited without publisher information, and I've tracked down a book which has been been tranlated into English and has a chapter on the subject. I don't have access to the book itself but the contents are listed here. Part of the difficulty here is that each of the subject's names can be transliterated in several ways, making searching in the Latin alphabet next to impossible. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. There are online references with slightly different spellings: Rabbi Chaim Elazar Wachs or Haim Elazar (The Nefesh Haya) Wachs The differences in spelling need to be noted and the references included. --Poeticbent talk 01:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, perhaps we could get someone at he:wikipedia to have a look at the sources for us? Given the English language source provided by Phil Bridger, I'm inclined to believe that this person is notable, but if we can translate some of the Hebrew sources that could push it beyond doubt. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC).
• Delete Google search does not return any individual whose name is an exact match:
  

http://www.google.co.in/search?q=Chaim+Elozor+Wax&hl=en&start=0&sa=N
http://www.google.co.in/search?q=Chaim+Elazar+Wax&hl=en&start=0&sa=N. Hence fails WP:NOTABILITY -Ravichandar 02:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Bao

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

Billy Bao doesn't seem to be a notable musician or artist as to be included on Wikipedia. The-15th (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Well, I came here to do a search on the man... He got reviews in magazines such as The Wire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmoderne (talk • contribs) 14:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No sources, no real notability evidence. Searching tells me that his albums aren't on notable labels and that there's little to no RS coverage out there about him. Nothing but strikes at WP:MUSIC. SingCal 23:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, there are a couple of reviews on indie sites and the like ([3]), but it's pretty slim pickings. Is probably on the borderline either way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC).
• Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (Non-admin closure) as per WP:SNOW. POV issues could be resolved by editing the article-Ravichandar 03:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto-Montreal rivalry

Toronto-Montreal rivalry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article consists of mainly 'primary research', if research at all and does not have notability and the neutrality is disputed. For example, just because two major cities are 'competitive', does that mean they hate each other? Cahk (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Fixed formatting for you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —BelovedFreak 20:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral The rhetoric that leads to the lack of neutrality can be cleaned up, so is not a valid deletion argument. As far as the notability goes, I think there is unquestionably a rivalry, but I am not certain how much it exists beyond the bounds of the hockey rivalry. To some extent, certainly, but I'm not sure it reaches the levels of the Battle of Alberta between Calgary and Edmonton, which has impacted the political, social and sporting spheres. I would lean towards keep and cleanup if others who are more familiar with the historical aspects of a potential rivalry between the two cities argue this article concept is with merit. Resolute 21:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - The Toronto-Montreal rivalry played an important role in the development of Canada since its foundation. I would argue that this rival is just as big as the Battle of Alberta and probably older. This article just needs expanding (history, etc), more sources and a cleanup (neutral wording). MTLskyline (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note MTLskyline was the creator of the article and thus his comment shouldn't be weighted equally as to others.--Cahk (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment So what if MTLskyline was the creator of the article? Just because he created the article doesn't mean that his comments should be weighted less or more than other contributors. His comments should be weighted equally. nat.utoronto 19:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment My bad. I was intended to make clear that he is the article creator. "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article."Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and "If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias." Wikipedia:Conflict of interest --Cahk (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment As one of those stereotypical anglo Montrealers who loathes Toronto (sorry, but it's true) I do have a hard time understanding how the Battle of Alberta could be notable, but Montreal-Toronto not. Of course, I could just be blinded by prejudice. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As the nominator for AfD, I wasn't aware of the Battle of Alberta article before. For one thing, the 'Anti-Toronto sentiment' part is solely based on one's opinion and I fail to see how comparison of universities and the population have anything to do with it. Battle of Alberta is a TERM used by news and sports reporter (TSN, Sportnet, etc) whereas this one isn't. In addition, the BoA article is far more detailed than this article, which to me, consists of some editor's feeling and therefore, not encylopedic.--Cahk (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The more you argue this, the less I tend to agree with you. The Montreal-Toronto rivalry has been a part of Canadian culture. You referenced Sportsnet: well, the rivalry between the Habs and Leafs has been immortalized in a bona fide Canadian classic The Hockey Sweater, which should at least count as much as remarks on a cable sports show. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Although in fairness, the protagonist in the Hockey Sweater lives in rural Quebec and not Montreal, so its hardly an ideal example, I grant you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I am not intending to argue. I am simply saying the 'Battle of Alberta' is a term used (for which it seems encylopedic - however, I haven't looked into that article) whereas Toronto-Montreal rivalry isn't (and I am not saying there are no rivalry, I am saying the article is not anywhere near encylopedic level).--Cahk (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
          • You've certainly made your case. And I am not intending -- at least yet -- to oppose this nomination for deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes I created this article and have done a large portion of the work on it. I agree that the article needs to be better, but the Toronto-Montreal rivalry is just as important as the Battle of Alberta. I noticed that the nominator, Cahk, is from British Columbia so this rivalry may not mean anything to him at all. But in eastern Canada, it is a very important rivalry. So rather than outright deleting it, why not make suggestions as to how it can be improved or remove problematic areas yourself (such as the Anti-Toronto sentiment section (that I paraphrased from a CTV interview with the filmmaker of the documentary film Let's All Hate Toronto)? Another possible suggestion: Merge this article and the Battle of Alberta into an article entitled Canadian Regional Rivalries much like Australian regional rivalries. Cheers. MTLskyline (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I am also of the opinion that brand new pages should exist for the Battle of Ontario and the Battle of Quebec, or that discussions of these should be incorporated into a Canadian regional rivalries article. MTLskyline (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
      • In fairness, neither the BoA nor this article means anything to me, which is why I think I can look at this more objectively. This article is basically unsourced and have no objectivity which is why I nominated this article in the first place. Had I not been living in Canada and I read the Anti-Toronto sentiment section, I would say it is a unfair (if not biased) statement. I like the idea of merging and if you can come up with a more detailed proposal, I might withdraw this AfD nomination.
        I also want to draw your attention to the term BoA, it's not simply descrbing the article. It is, an actual term used by the media. Battle of Ontario/Quebec, on the other hand, would not be the case. --Cahk (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, Battle of Ontario is used, but almost exclusively within the context of the Maple Leafs-Senators rivalry. Incidentally, I would oppose merging the Battle of Alberta article into a Canadian rivalaries article. It certainly would merit prominient mention in such an article, but there is more than enough source material for a separate article. Resolute 21:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
      • To be fair, the BoA article is just as unsourced as this article, although more detailed and more neutral toned.--Cahk (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. This article is based in fact but without a direct source, it's OR:synthesis of information. I would like to think that the verifiable information could be merged somewhere but I don't know where. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC) *P.S. I'm pretty certain that I've read history articles on the Toronto-Hamilton rivalry. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Toronto and Montreal and redirect to National Hockey League rivalries#Maple Leafs-Canadiens Rivalry, the primary use of the term. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. You are suggesting of deleting the Quebec part ouright and turns this into an Ontario-based article?--Cahk (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • No. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G3 by User:Toddst1, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stefano Vroom

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

comic book character does not exist in any of the references cited nor in Google Search. WP:HOAX - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G3 as hoax, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, hoax. Not mentioned anywhere. -- Mithent (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Boldly redirected by Travellingcari (talk · contribs), no need to keep discussion open since the consensus was to redirect anyway. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Liechty Middle School

John Liechty Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:N. Need I say more? Two One Six Five Five ^τ _ʃ 20:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Los Angeles Unified School District schools per WP:SCHOOL. Middle school with minimal non-routine WP:RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to appropriate district. Given that the school is new, it is unlikely to be notable - no awards, no longevity for history, no coverage in reliable sources. WP:SCHOOL. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to List of Los Angeles Unified School District schools as could have been boldly done without coming here. TerriersFan (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Los Angeles Unified School District schools per WP:SCHOOL and Gene93k. --BelovedFreak 20:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Boldly re-directed, there was no encyclopedic content worth merging. Feel free to rv me if there's some reason this shouldn't be done but this didn't need an AfD TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aura-Soma

Aura-Soma (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article on a particular kind of energy medicine that is sponsored by a singular company who does not rise to the level of WP:CORP. Wikipedia demands that we be able to cite independent sources, especially when describing non-mainstream ideas. This particular subject is so obscure and has received no outside notice. The only possible sources for it are websites of true believers. This makes the article impossible to write and therefore we need to delete it. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum-Touch (3rd nomination)

• Delete as nominator. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails notability requirements (WP:N, WP:ORG, etc). The only reliable secondary source is a brief narrative in the local-news section of the BBC from 2005, which doesn't seem enough to build an article around and doesn't seem to rise above the level of "trivial" coverage. The remainder of sources are primary sources and self-published websites affiliated with the subject, which are not the makings of an encyclopedic article. Note that I noticed this AfD through discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard. MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per the others - I searched this at Quackwatch, where it gets nothing but a very passing mention in a list. That rather suggests lack of notability - realistically, it's only been around since the 80s, so lack of coverage in RS is not surprising. Moreschi (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, obscure. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:ORG/WP:CORP and WP:FRINGE. Obscure therapy is non-notable per [4] (no scientific references) and [5]. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable product of a non-notable organisation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that there is insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum-Touch

Quantum-Touch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a therapeutic touch company that does not rise to the level of WP:CORP. It is impossible to get secondary sources on this particular practice (outside some trivial mentions: for example, the one BBC article only parrots quantum-touch's website and does not offer any attempt at objective reporting about the company) and therefore it will be impossible to satisfy neutrality as well as reliability of sources for this article. Please note that a number of interested parties have tried to (re)write the article in order to make it appear superficially as well-sourced, but it is in fact only sourced to quantum-touch believer websites. Also note that the previous AfD was closed incorrectly as keep when the consensus was clearly to delete. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

See related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aura-Soma

• Delete as nominator. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - No reliable sources - article would not be able to satisfy WP:NPOV considering the nature of the references. Also, WP:FRINGE. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The article has undergone significant changes during the last AfD, and in it's current form, I don't see any problems with it. It is not up to Wikipedia to decide how the BBC should do it's reports; if they wish to copy and paste a press release from a company, that is their perogative, and until they are no longer widely regarded as a reliable source, we can't simply discount their reports by choice. Also, it should be obvious that most of the references and links will go to websites maintained by groups who subscribe to the belief that this corporation's products. The E-meter used by Scientology and the Religious Technology Center that produces it are similar entities with similar articles that have the same kind of issues that you put forth as grounds for deletion, when in fact, they are simply inherent to this kind of article. Also, WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED should be considered here. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Question I agree that the company itself is not notable. The article, however, appears to be primarily about a technique instead of a business. Does anyone know how this differs from other forms of energy work? If this is one company's brand-name version of energy work, dressed up with some particle physics terms as a marketing ploy, then it should be redirected to the general article on the subject. We would not, for example, support an article on every single computer company's "certified technician" training program. However, if it's a particular kind of work that is materially different from all the other kinds of energy work, then the technique itself might be notable (although I doubt it, given the lack of references). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a particular kind of energy work. Hohohahaha (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Redirect Thanks. In that case, I think it should be redirected to energy work or therapeutic touch. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails all forms of notablity, including WP:FRINGE and WP:ORG, due to a lack of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. The BBC reference is the definition of "trivial" coverage, and the remainder of the sources are questionably reliable (e.g. promotional DVD's) and directly affiliated with the subject (hence not independent). At the very least, this should be redirected to energy therapy, though I think deletion would be more appropriate. Note that I noticed this AfD on the fringe theories noticeboard, so take that for what you will. MastCell ^Talk 21:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I started reworking this article from a complete and utter vanispamtisement back at the end of January. The (trivial) BBC mention gave me hope that reliable secondary sources could be turned up, but such has not been the case. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 21:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not readily distinguishable from thousands of other slight variations on energy therapy et. al. The BBC mention isn't sufficient to support an article, as insufficient third-party coverage to build a reliable, NPOV article. Also, in the spirit of WP:IGNORE, I feel like articles from reliable sources that are transparently the result of an editor being up against a deadline and going Googling should be discounted. An half-paragraph from the BBC's '10 Guys I met in the Grocery' wouldn't entitle Micky the stock boy to his own article, sourced from his mum. --Clay Collier (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The gold standard here is non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. The only reliable source here is the BBC; the article in question is titled "10 lesser-known alternative therapies." That speaks for itself. No evidence of notability. <eleland/talkedits> 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. non notable Dlabtot (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC
• Keep 1)200,000 google hits; 2) mentioned by the BBC 3)the book itself is in it's 3rd edition 4)the third edition is #7,000 on Amazon's overall sales 5)the book is Amzon's #10 for energy healing 6)the book is Amazon's #4 for accupunture and accupressure! [[6]]

,7) mention in the skeptic's dictionary newsletter [[7]] 8) mentions in various reasonably prominent websites/media [[8]], [[9]], [[10]] 9)"Significant Breakthrough", Alternative Medicine Magazine [[11]] (yes still looking for the article) 10) Appears to have a section about it in this book "The Everything Reiki Book: Channel Your Positive Energy to Reduce Stress, Promote Healing, and Enhance Your Quality of Life (Everything Series),Chapter 22 - Other Touch or Energy Based Therapies, Phylameana lila Desy ISBN-10 159337030X" 11) Is that enough? =) 12) Bad faith nomination and canvasing- until a few hours ago the poster of this afd was interested in working on this article, till some portions he really liked were shown to be invalid, then he afd's and posts a message about this deletion at the WP:FTN. Canvasing anyone? Hohohahaha (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Not enough RS even to describe what the technique is. If decision is to keep, reduce to short stub based on BBC only until other RS appear. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 15:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Two books, one in its 3rd edition; DVDs; growing recognition; most points already listed above. Also, agree about bad faith nomination. The article as it stands today is a mere shadow of what it was 6 months ago. afd nomination by a key editor of the article is distressing, as it is obvious that the editor was not even well informed about what Quantum-Touch is. Has ScienceApologist even read the forward of the book? Trane Francks (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

One does not need to be "informed" about a candidate for deletion. These discussions revolve around Wikipedia guidelines and policies. If anything, someone entirely too close to the subject risks a WP:COI or slanted view. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that working on an article means that you have to support its existence. I've certainly encountered articles that looked like they had promise, but the longer I worked on them, the less they appeared to comply with basic policies. If, in working on it, the editor comes to the conclusion that the article is inappropriate, then the responsible thing to do is to nominate it for deletion, not to keep it around as a monument to sunk costs and inertia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, the BBC mention is trivial, and the other sources provided don't seem that reliable. Non-notable fringe/quack medicine. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was redirected to dog hybrid. Non-admin closure. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chiweenie

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

Possible neologism might be better transwikid to wiktionary neonwhite user page talk 19:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to dog hybrid. A large number of these were redirected or deleted last year. --Dhartung | Talk 19:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedily redirected to dog hybrid. No content to even suggest notability - it's easy to come up with a name for a particular cross, but much harder to establish that people are actually going out and looking for dogs of this specific type. Simple inclusion in the ACHC list is meaningless, particularly given the note at the bottom that "OTHER HYBRIDS WILL BE ADDED AS DEMANDED BY BREEDERS". Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge and Redirect to List of Ubuntu-based distributions which looks to be the best target. Fails notability guidelines on its own. Davewild (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zebuntu

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

Delete no indication or sources showing that this flavor of Linux is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge consider merging with List of Linux distributions or Ubuntu. --neonwhite user page talk 19:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete -- although there are a few sources knocking around, they seem to say that this is little more than Yet Another Ubuntu Clone. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 20:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with List of Linux distributions or Ubuntu. It has a place, this just isn't it. Perhaps a List of Ubuntu variants is needed. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with List of Linux distributions. Notability not asserted.Midorihana^~iidesune? 02:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Ubuntu-based distributions. Not really that notable or important on its own. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted by User:Orangemike (G12 Blatant copyright infringement) Non admin closure -- RoninBK _{T C} 21:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The actor's vow

The actor's vow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, possible copyright problem with text ViperSnake151 19:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, seems to be known in the acting/coaching community but no reliable sources found in GB/GS/GNA. There are only 9! GHITS. As we cannot host the text, and an analysis is impossible, at best this could merit a small mention in Kazan's article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Copyright Violation of http://www.enciperforms.com/ and tagged as such.--Pmedema (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Armél (R&B Singer)

Armél (R&B Singer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be a notable singer per WP:MUSIC. Would have A7'd this but felt that this warranted a discussion first. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - hasn't released anything yet -- Whpq (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Qualm.co.uk

Qualm.co.uk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nn magazine, contributions by notables does not make a work notable per numerous DRVs, and this has not independent sources of notability Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak Delete - The naming is incorrect for a start, the publication is simple called 'Qualm', Qualm.co.uk is it's web address. I don't think it is general wikipedia practice to name a page after the subjects web address. Neither the website nor the publication seem to be notable, however publishing notable authors can add to a publications notability. --neonwhite user page talk 19:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Publishing notable authors does not make a publication notable (WP:NOTINHERITED) -- what makes something notable is coverage in reliable third party sources. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 20:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Publishing notable authors can add to the notability of a publication. --neonwhite user page talk 16:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Can you point me to a policy or guideline which says that? —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 17:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete An article for something having no third-party sources is little better than an ad.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 01:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, if they'd been the first to publish major works by notable poets, then I would judge them notable enough. However, there is no evidence that the pieces published have been first-run, nor that they've been "major" works. The lack of sources or external discussion is also worrying. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yarukku Yaaro

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

Article fails to meet WP:N as nothing other than straight sporks from the film are included. Additionally per WP:NF the artilce fails to inclide most (if not all) of the following guidelines: No external sources are quoted which establidh the notability. There is niether of a Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. nor was the film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. Or at least in the 10 or so days since the article was created they have failed to turn up. Additionally there appear to be no mention of any reviews by film critics. The whole artilce appears to be OR with all information from the film. Additionally it appears that the article has been speedied before under CS10 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yarukku Yaaro and recreated. A previous speedy failed, and a prod was removed (perhapes in the mistaken belief it was a speed tag? see diff BigHairRef | Talk 18:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless coverage in reliable third party sources can be found. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 20:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per prior AfD, this time with added salt. PC78 (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails notability -- none of the artists have articles of their own. Also unreferenced with a lot of POV.-Ravichandar 03:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Syed Arslan Ali

Syed Arslan Ali (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete biographical article. The article does not indicate why this person is "notable", and an internet search yields eight results, none of which suggests any prominence. In my opinion, this person fails WP:BIO. Mindmatrix 18:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete (A7) -- WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 20:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7 Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per A7 and so tagged. He's just some guy. That's not worthy of an encyclopedia page. DarkAudit (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge. The content has been merged to The Crackpots and These Women with a link in that article to the second episode in which the day was mentioned. The title now redirects to The Crackpots and These Women. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Big Block of Cheese Day

Delete - previous AFD from October/November 2006 closed as keep on the basis of a lot of dubious arguments along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:INTERESTING. This fictional concept does not appear to be notable outside of the fiction of the show. There do not appear to be reliable sources that are about this phrase or concept, rather than simply use the phrase, so this also implicates WP:NEO and WP:FICT as no real-world context or sourced analysis as required by WP:NOT#PLOT can be written. Otto4711 (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with The West Wing. Basketball110 _{Go Longhorns!} 18:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Cut down and merge with The West Wing. It's interesting and sourcable within the context of the universe it occurs in. The article in its current form, however, is a little big for merging. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Cut the cheese down to size and merge into West Wing - Non-notable, in-universe fun (I knew this one already). --Orange Mike | Talk 01:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Where would you put it, though? It might be better to merge this information into The Crackpots and These Women, since that's the first appearance of this concept in the series. Zagalejo^^^ 03:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as it is interesting to know if it is real, and it is interesting to know what the historical basis is. There are reliable sources. And if an entire category exists for Category:Fictional holidays, then this is the type of content that is appropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not paper and as such can include more obscure topics. This has already survived AFD once. — Reinyday, 05:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • reply - as the article itself explains, the idea, while fictitious, came from an obscure incident in Andrew Jackson's presidency. It has, however, no existence outside the series. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument for retention. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "This has already survived AFD once" -- which means that it must continue to meet wiki-standards. if the article had been deleted already, then I concede that the Wiki-standrads would not apply as rigorously. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Smerge (Selectively merge) into the first episode in which it appeared, which is apparently The Crackpots and These Women. We do not need in addition to an encyclopedia article on every episode of a TV series, separate articles on everything mentioned in each episode. Edison (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that it is a non notable neologism. Davewild (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interactive big bang

Interactive big bang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism. No relevant results on Google. Prod removed by author. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 18:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable neologism. No sources cited, and the combination of "interactive big bang" and "interactive ripples" receives zero Google hits. EALacey (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Original research that is unlikely to undergo or unable to undergo a fundamental rewrite. WP:NEO and WP:V issues prevail. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as OR neologism. I'm not sure if it's even putting across any particular idea clearly apart from "interactivity in ads is good". -- Mithent (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, OR neologism. Possibly intended to promote and direct traffic to the linked web site.--Boson (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Relates to the oft-deleted Interactive Ripples. This company is starting to annoy me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, "Interactive Big bang is an online advertising practice which refers to optimum utilization of the available online marketing tools to capture the click of the visitors in order to make a brand visible and available in the online space", almost speedyable as incomprehensible nonsense! Seriously though, WP:NEO would seem to apply here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs) 02:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G10 per User:Toddst1, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amanda Shearer

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

I added a speedy deletion tag (Non-notable individual which was quickly removed by an IP editor. So here we are. As I can find no related Google results, I suspect this may be an attack page as well as WP:CSD#A7. And no results for the two films mentioned + the actress' name. (The things I do for WP...)--Kateshortforbob 18:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Kateshortforbob 18:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

NB. Editor's other creation, Mrs. Bookless, I have also speedy-tagged as an attack page; I'm pretty sure "very masculine" qualifies as an attack. --Kateshortforbob 18:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (Non-admin closure) as per general consensus.-Ravichandar 07:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seth Abramson

Seth_Abramson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Unencyclopedic material. Advertising/promotion. Non-notable person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agrofe (talk • contribs) 2008/03/17 14:06:36

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Week keep There's quite a bit of cruft here, but there may also be a diamond underneath. He seems notable to me and the article definitely has a lot of varied sources. My concern is that a lot of the article -- and claim of notability -- rests upon various blogs, which are NOT reliable. On the balance of both the credit and debit columns, I'm leaning ever-so-slightly to the keep side. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 18:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep - but a lot of the fluff (blogs and obscure little magazine credits) has to get cleared out, so we can see the substance, if any. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, as above. I feel he might just be notable, but there is a lot of cruft that needs to be burned out of the article first. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was delete. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aedis Eclipse: Generation of Chaos

Aedis Eclipse: Generation of Chaos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Should be a speedy cat for these. Anyway, not notable, no references. ukexpat (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

reply - there is: db-context! --Orange Mike | Talk 02:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) as per general consensus.-Ravichandar 02:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Businesses and organizations in Second Life

Businesses and organizations in Second Life (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article seems to be a multitude of violations of WP:NOT, including WP:NOT#ADVERTISING, WP:NOT#LINK, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:NOT#INFO. Russavia (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep - Listmania!(™) aside, the article could do more to address this notable aspect of the Massive Multiplayer Online game which has received significant media attention. Subject is notable though, as evidenced by the following examples: [12] ,[13], [14] AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Second life in and of itself is notable. A major aspect of it is the ability for the users to create and manage businesses and organizations within the universe. While this might not warrant an article, or even a stub, for every one of those individual businesses and organizations, I think a list of them is well within what we can have here. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It needs to be noted that this subject is already covered in some detail at Second_Life#Businesses and organizations in Second Life. Are long lists (most of which are external links) warranted? Considering that is seems that all one has to do is pay $9.95 to use this game, slap up a virtual store, write up a real world press release, and hey presto, they too can add their company name and weblink to the article...what a fantastic cheap form of advertising. --Россавиа ^Диалог 20:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No one comes to Wikipedia looking for products in Second Life. It's certainly not advertising. It's information about what's happening in a notable aspect of a notable environment. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, but remove everything without a reliable source or Wikipedia article- the current version is mostly a growing collection of spam.--CoJaBo (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Reassess after stripping out every entry that has done diddly squat within the last year.

Signpostmarv (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge those entries with their own article into Second_Life#Businesses and organizations in Second Life; delete the rest of this linkfarm. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Lists. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Simply quoting a policy does not offer us insight as to why you believe it should be kept. Could you please elaborate? Thank you. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a discriminate and verifiable list and is consistent per the First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on Second Life, which is notable, and therefore the article works as a sub-article on Second Life. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, very notable. if Reuters and IBM have a presence there, how is it not notable? The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Ontario Provincial Police and VancouverPolice all (sadly) have a presense on Second Life as well... RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 03:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, but perhaps develop a more precise criteria for inclusion in the list. The links to the purely in-game companies could probably be cut down. Is there some other website we could link to that has a list of Second Life company urls? It's a notable topic, especially the real-life businesses that have a Second Life presence. --Pixelface (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline with crsytal ball concerns. Davewild (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 220 (music single)

220 (music single) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced Material and fails WP:Music. Nothing confirms that this will be released as a single, the first one hasn't even been released worldwide yet. Surfer-boy94 (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Unsourced fancruft on non-notable single. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, etc. Can easily be recreated to present level should sources confirm this. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accuride International

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

Fails WP:ORG no secondary sources provided except a trivial mention regarding observing minutes silence for Sept 11. and the other is an advertisement. BigDunc (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. A Google News search shows that specialist and trade magazines think that this company is notable enough for them to report on their new products, executive appointments etc. so it is notable enough for Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Leading US company in drawer slides. I have added some refs which reflect its position in the US market. --Macrakis (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Changed my opinion on review of link provided by Phil Bridger. BigDunc (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Bernardo Jua

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. Normally I would recommend speedy keep, but there are too many improper AfD nominations from the same author. They should be listed in one AfD. MrPrada (talk) 08:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)}}

Comment. No justification or reason for nomination given. Should speedy close keep unless provided. User has also nominated numerous other kickboxing articles. MrPrada (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

• Delete. Non notable kickboxer. (Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Close in favor of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boetsch, still ongoing at this time. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boetsch

Boetsch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

This page is meant to link to a Wikipedia page on ECOLAS and it was only through an error of intiation to Wikipedia that the first nomination was cancelled.Decano (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Carlos Andino

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. Normally I would recommend speedy keep, but there are too many improper AfD nominations from the same author. They should be listed in one AfD. MrPrada (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)}}

Comment. No justification or reason for nomination given. Should speedy close keep unless provided. MrPrada (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

• Delete Non notable kickboxer. (Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Christopher Allen

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. Normally I would recommend speedy keep, but there are too many improper AfD nominations from the same author. They should be listed in one AfD. MrPrada (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)}}

Comment. No justification or reason for nomination given. Should speedy close keep unless provided. MrPrada (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

• Delete. Non notable kickboxer, martial artist. A page full of biased unreferenced information. (Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. On the island of Guam, Christopher Allen is a local legend. Remember, we are talking about Guam here. Aside from Chris, the only other noted MMA fighter was John Calvo. Allen is noted internationally. His 3 fights in two pay-per-view SuperBrawl promotions were seen world wide. Allen's kickboxing record was 16-4 & was supported by both SuperBrawl videos. If you delete him, then the majority of fighters listed under the categories kickboxers or male kickboxers should also be deleted. Just because a fighter doesn't fight in K-1, UFC, or PRIDE, doesn't make them less well known. Allen had the kickboxing background to earn his entry into SuperBrawl. He is as known to the general public in part because of his fights in Superbrawl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legwarmers1980 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Cornelious Drane

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. Normally I would recommend speedy keep, but there are too many improper AfD nominations from the same author. They should be listed in one AfD. MrPrada (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)}}

Comment. No justification or reason for nomination given. Should speedy close keep unless provided. User has also nominated numerous other kickboxing articles. MrPrada (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete. Non notable boxer (Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Lapierre

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

I can't find anything notable about this guy, but the creator has been very insistent about creating pages about him and his work. Let's see what everyone else thinks. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable.--Michael White^T·C 16:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Subject does not seem to be notable. Article does seem to be promotional in nature. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Promotional, non-notable; pathetic sourcing. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• delete as above.--Smerus (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, the "Worcester County Memorial Park website" might be notable, but he is not. Very promotional in tone. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC).

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

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

[edit] Gilberto (Gil) Diaz

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. Normally I would recommend speedy keep, but there are too many improper AfD nominations from the same author. They should be listed in one AfD. MrPrada (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Gilberto (Gil) Diaz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Comment. No justification or reason for nomination given. Should speedy close keep unless provided. User has also nominated numerous other kickboxing articles. MrPrada (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Non notable kickboxer. (Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Hank Bergman

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. Normally I would recommend speedy keep, but there are too many improper AfD nominations from the same author. They should be listed in one AfD. MrPrada (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

• Delete. A non notable boxer. The article seems to be created by a personal admirer with unreferenced biased information. (Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, obviously per refs in article. 16 tertiary and 2 secondary sources are more then enough for notability and verifiability. Also, there is no justification for the AfD, speedy close unless the nominator can provide a reason why it should go. MrPrada (talk) 07:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. THIS ARTICLE SHOULDN'T BE DELETED! This article has nothing really to do with being a famous boxer. It's about a Baltimore, Maryland war hero who happened to be an amateur boxer. If anything, if the fact that Bergman wasn't a famous boxer, just delete that category from his article, but don't delete the whole thing. Bergman is a notable person from the Maryland area & his military service to his country is something not easily dismissed. This article has support from references such as Soldier of Fortune Magazine, The Evening Sun, and the Miami Herald; all respected publications:Legwarmers1980 (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, subject appears to be notable (based on the sources given in the article) in his own right, regardless of whether he's notable as a boxer. Scog (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was split, per overwhelming consensus, into lists by continents. See Wikipedia:Summary style for guidance on the process. If additional subdivision is appropriate, as mentioned by several in this debate, or if another organization is preferred, this may be worked out in discussion at the sub-article's talk page (or talk pages, as the case may be). After splitting, the current article should probably be redirected to Lists of automobiles as the master list. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of cars

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

At one time was but no longer a list of cars but possibly a subset of List of automobile manufacturers. Paul foord (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Break up into sub-lists, then Delete as unmanageable. (Doesn't have to be by countries, perhaps by sub-regions.) It made my browser stall just to look at it. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Split into sub-lists per Lord Uniscorn, but then redirect to Lists of automobiles and add links to the resulting sub-lists to that page. France, Germany, United Kingdom, and United States are probably big enough to have their own stand-alone lists, the rest could be split to continental regions. DHowell (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• I don't have a problem with split into sub-lists, as this list will be huge if it ever gets remotely close to complete. It is still a work in progress, and many more makes and models can be added still. France, the UK, and the US can definitely be made into their own lists, as well as most likely Germany, Italy and Japan. I agree that grouping the rest by continent makes the most sense. --SimonX (talk) 05:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• A Split as above, would seem to make more sense from a navigational point of view. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC).
• Keep this list is necessary , yup the article is quite big but sometimes it has to be . if there is a overwhelming support for splitting then it may be done under continents . lets first save this article & then do the needful .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (Non-admin closure) as per general consensus.-Ravichandar 07:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seth Abramson

Seth_Abramson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Unencyclopedic material. Advertising/promotion. Non-notable person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agrofe (talk • contribs) 2008/03/17 14:06:36

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Week keep There's quite a bit of cruft here, but there may also be a diamond underneath. He seems notable to me and the article definitely has a lot of varied sources. My concern is that a lot of the article -- and claim of notability -- rests upon various blogs, which are NOT reliable. On the balance of both the credit and debit columns, I'm leaning ever-so-slightly to the keep side. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 18:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep - but a lot of the fluff (blogs and obscure little magazine credits) has to get cleared out, so we can see the substance, if any. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, as above. I feel he might just be notable, but there is a lot of cruft that needs to be burned out of the article first. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC).

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

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

[edit] Sherman Bergman

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. Normally I would recommend speedy keep, but there are too many improper AfD nominations from the same author. They should be listed in one AfD. Mrprada911 (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

• Delete. This article is about a non notable kickboxer created by a personal admirer with a biased and bogus information. It seems to be here since 2005 and is way overdue to be deleted. (Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. There is no justification/nomination for this AfD, should speedy close unless it is provided.

• • Keep/comment. Can you provide examples of the #1 personal admiration, #2 biased information, #3 bogus information? The amount of references in the article now would lend me to believe there is inherent notability here, so the onus is on you to disprove the massive comment below. Also, would you be willing to answer why you have nominated so many kickboxing articles for deletion at this time? I am sure there is a good reaosn, but it would help provide context. Mrprada911 (talk) 07:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This Article Should Not Be Deleted. March 17, 2008: First off I totally disagree with the reasons that this article should be deleted. Let me address the questions stated here by Mr. Rockatansky.

1.) He says that Sherman Bergman is a "non-notable" kickboxer. How does he come to this conclusion: Clearly Bergman was not a world champion, but that doesn't make him "non-notable". To begin, Bergman was considered "One of The Best new fighters (Kickboxers) on his way to the top". This is a direct quoate from OFFICIAL KARATE writer Barry Harrell in the November 1984 Issue in the Southern Exposure Column. Bergman's career has been highlighted in The Miami Herald Newspaper (He has appeared in this paper approx. 40 times & the Herald is not a rinky dink newsletter). Bergman's career has also been written about in Official Karate Magazine, Black Belt Magazine, News For You Newspaper, The Trendsetter Newspaper, and EDWORKS Newspaper. He also appeared in South American Newspapers: Fundacao Brasil & Argentina Hoy. His fight with Frank MaHarris was reported on television, and he appeared on WLRN Channel 17 on South Florida television.In other words, would a "Non-Notable" kickboxer receive Local, National, and International Coverage, if he was a total nothing. I don't think so. This proves that Bergman was indeed a kickboxer of note & it's a fact (supported by newspaper, magazine, & T.V. reports) that he was noted for his impressive string of first round knockout victories. 2.) Biased? How is the article biase. Read it. It not once says that Bergman was the "greatest fighter", "The hardest puncher", or "The most feared fighter". It simple states the facts of his career. There are basically no adjectives before or after his name. 3.) Bogus Information! I'm sorry, but this entire article is supported with concrete facts supported by legit & highly respected sources. Examples: 1.) Official Karate Magazine (November 1985, page 14) printed the results of Bergman's 23 second knockout over Thailand's Morsak Muangsu. It's in the magazine & is not a figment of my imagination. This fight was also reported in an article by Johnny Diaz in the Miami Herald, and by Verna Lins Ferst in the Brazilian paper, Fundacao Brasil. Bergman's first round KO over Alejandro DasCola was printed in the Trendsetter, Vol.2, No.1 Sept/Oct.1989,page 5. In the report, DasCola is listed as 22-0. Bergman's 1988 comeback was highlighted in the Miami Herald. Bergman's 18 second KO over Wilver (Rio) Johnson & knockouts over Mario Wilfredos also appeared in the Miami Herald & Fundacao Brasil. Bergman's loss to Gary Daniels was printed in Miami Herald Sports Section in 1980. Also, Bergman's ring record is confirmed by newspaper & magazine articles: Examples: Official Karate Magazine: Nov.1985, Bergman was listed as 13-1 (13 first round knockouts. Miami Herald, Sept.29, 1988, Bergman was 14-1 (14 first round knockouts), Trendsetter 1989, Bergman was 18-1 (18 first round knockouts), Miami Herald, July 12, 1990, Bergman is listed as 19-1 (19 first round knockouts), Black Belt, Sept.1998, Bergman is 25-4 (25 knockouts),etc. etc. As far as anything I posted nothing was biased or bogus. Bergman's complete kickboxing record is open to debate. He is definetly 53-6 (53 knockouts). However, the STARSYSTEM had Bergman as 14-0 in 1983, while OFFICIAL KARATE had him 12-1 at the time. Some of his victories are clearly missing. Also, some of his fights were fought under Full_Contact rules & no kickboxing rules, so it's difficult to sometimes figure out if these fights should be counted in his over-all stats. For all of these reasons, I feel that this article, supported by a wealth of legit references & about a kickboxer known not only in South Florida, but Nationally, and interally as well, should not be delected. Thank you:DavidToma (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding References

I'm going to state only facts here which I personally took countless hours to research. I can honestly say that every Reference listed for Sherman Bergman is 100% correct, and contrary to some negative statements, not bogus or fake. The Miami Herald References: If you go to MiamiHerald.com and search the archives from 1982 to present, you will find 95% of the references which I listed. However, only 4 articles begin with Sherman Bergman: 09/29/1988, Page 25: Sherman Bergman, 9/22/1991. Page 38:TEACHER GETS HIS KICKS IN CLASSROOM & RING by Johnny Diaz(Herald Writer), 7/12/1990, page 6: KICK-BOXER INSPIRES STUDENTS by Johnny Diaz(Herald Columnist), and 8/18/2002, Page28MB: ESOL STUDENTS PLACE IN KARATE CHAMPIONSHIPS, by Herald Staff. The other searches contain the articles I listed, but you have to access the entire article to read about Bergman. EVERY REFERENCE WHICH I POSTED IS & I REPEAT, 100% CORRECT & supported & backed-up by articles published in the Herald. However, 4 references I listed are not on the search archives, but I have the orginal articles from the Herald & would be happy to upload them to the picture files where anyone can view & read them. The Official Karate Magazine: Bergman appeared twice in Barry Harrell's column, SOUTHERN EXPOSURE in the magazine.in 1984 & 1985. Harrell wrote in 1984, "Sherman (Big Train) Bergman of Miami, seems to be one of the best new fighters on his way to the top". A year later in the same column, Harrell reports on Bergman's 23 second knockout over Thailand's Morsak Muangsu and writes, " Many people believe that Bergman has the power to beat Alvin "The Million Dollar Baby" Prouder". Official Karate Magazine can not be found in a google search regarding specific issues. However, I have the original magazines & again, would be more then happy to upload both articles. I THINK IT IS BAD TASTE TO COME OUT & SAY THE INFORMATION I POSTED IS A HOAX, BOGUS, or a FAKE, because it's not. Regarding the existence of Sherman Bergman and his Kickboxing Abilities: Sherman Bergman clearly exists. He started fighting in 1976 & fought as recently as 2004 (according to the Miami Herald. In an interview in Xuat Tinh Som (Tre Today), dated 12/31/2007, in a interview with Jean-Claude Van Damme, the Bergman fight in 1979 is listed. Google search Van-Damm4e & Bergman & countless results are shown, as is his fight with Gary Daniels (I have the original newspaper clipping of this fight). Regarding Bergman's weight. Bergman fought mostly as a welterweight & middleweight. However, at one point he bulked up to heavyweight. In 2004, he lost over 50 pounds due to a severe case of kidney stones & dropped down to the 140s & fought. Regarding his 3 knockouts in one day, this was a tournament & the results were printed in the Herald, "Bergman defeated three opponents". From 2002-2004, Bergman fought in 7 tournaments & in most of them defeated 2 or three opponents. As for the Argentines, these matches were fought against Argentines living in South Florida, these tournaments were not fought overseas. Each & every tournament was reported in the Herald & I have the original clippings. Is Sherman Bergman a notable kickboxer?: I believe he is. Fact: Only U.S. fighter to have fought Jean-Claude Van Damme. First U.S. opponent of Gary Daniels. Noted for his impressive string of first round knockouts. Again his knockout record is supported by newspaper & magazine reports. His out-of-ring charity efforts & work in the field of education. Check the net & there are a number of fan clubs, some with over a 1,000 members. Has appeared in Newspapers & magazines in Florida, The United States, and Internationally. Where Do I fit In?: I'm just a fan. Not a friend or relative. My article on him is not bogus, fake, or a hoax. I think it's in bad taste to attack someone who has worked so hard in creating a page which is supported by facts:DavidToma (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep due to the withdrawal of the nomination Bardcom (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stellent

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

Delete No evidence of Notability other than being acquired by Oracle in Nov 2006 - anything notable should have been merged with the Oracle article by now Bardcom (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per consensus already reached yesterday on the talk page. Why bother bringing it here for deletion? Does 'somebody else' need to merge the info?--Michig (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as above. It doesn't need to have its own article but without a redirect, the article could just be recreated. JamminBen (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Why would someone recreate the article? Bardcom (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per Talk:Stellent#Merger proposal. What a way to throw a spanner in the works. Don't do this again, OK? --Dhartung | Talk 20:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Just to be clear. This AfD has absolutely nothing to do with the merge discussion ongoing. I nominated this article because it fails notability. A redirect is therefore not required. Bardcom (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Withdraw AfD Apologies - Dhartung kindly pointed out evidence of notability here Google News Archive. Please close this AfD. Merge and Redirect obviously Bardcom (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Walter (Von) McGee

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. Normally I would recommend speedy keep, but there are too many improper AfD nominations from the same author. They should be listed in one AfD. MrPrada (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. No justification or reason for nomination given. Should speedy close keep unless provided. User has also nominated numerous other kickboxing articles. MrPrada (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Walter (Von) McGee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete. Non notable kickboxer. (Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Wilver (Rio) Johnson

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. Normally I would recommend speedy keep, but there are too many improper AfD nominations from the same author. They should be listed in one AfD. MrPrada (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. No justification or reason for nomination given. Should speedy close keep unless provided. User has also nominated numerous other kickboxing articles. MrPrada (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wilver (Rio) Johnson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete. Non notable kickboxer. (Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Per sources added and consensus. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Very erotic very violent

Very erotic very violent (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not quite sure what this article is about but it seems to be a very very poorly translated transwiki article from Chinese Wikipedia. Notability is hard to discern due to the poor translation. In my opinion, it would have to be completely rewritten in order to resemble a proper article. SWik78 (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't make head nor tale of it after several readings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukexpat (talk • contribs)
• Delete No idea what this is supposed to be about -- not quite nonsense but still doesn't seem to be anything more than a poorly translated synthesis of sorts. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per translation; prior to the copy edit I thought it seemed like a neologism and/or synthesis of ideas. The improvements, however, have me believing that it is indeed a notable meme. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Very non-notable very deletable. Looks like a WP:NEO to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Paging Dr Getridovit to AfD. Stat. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is badly translated, but it's not hard to tell that it's about a Chinese internet meme, and the reference list shows that the topic has been at least as well covered by reliable sources as most of the internet memes with Wikipedia articles. The article ought to be cleaned up by someone who reads Chinese, but deleting it because most Wikipedia editors aren't in that category would be adding to a systemic bias in favour of topics from the English-speaking world. EALacey (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. May well be notable, but without some serious cleanup by someone who understands the Chinese sources, it's really impossible to tell. If someone does enough cleanup to make notability clear to non-Chinese-speakers, I'll change that to a "keep". Klausness (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Keep Now that the article has been improved, It's possible to make a reasonable assessment of notability, and it looks like it's worth keeping (though it probably needs more cleanup). Klausness (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Very bad translation Very keep, appears to be a notable meme, though it still needs cleanup. I made a start at fixing it up, if anyone wants to assist. ViperSnake151 19:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, This is a notable meme, the article contains sources and it certainly doesn't violate WP:NEO. This is Wikipedia, it's supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge, not just the sum of the US and Europe's knowledge. There should be no bias against Chinese articles. If this is deleted, I suggest deleting everything on this list as well. It should be cleaned up a bit though. Davedim (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - This seems quite notable, despite the quality of the article itself. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not sure what the article looked like when this was nominated, but as it stands now it meets notability criteria. The fact not all the sources can be understood is an issue, but the article shouldn't be penalized for that. 23skidoo (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Lapierre

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

I can't find anything notable about this guy, but the creator has been very insistent about creating pages about him and his work. Let's see what everyone else thinks. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable.--Michael White^T·C 16:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Subject does not seem to be notable. Article does seem to be promotional in nature. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Promotional, non-notable; pathetic sourcing. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• delete as above.--Smerus (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, the "Worcester County Memorial Park website" might be notable, but he is not. Very promotional in tone. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Garnik Hovhannisyan

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

Article created by User:Mario1987 which fails to demonstrate notability according to WP:ATHLETE or WP:FOOTY/Notability. PROD was removed without any improvements being made to the article English peasant 17:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following articles because they too demonstrate no notability and had the prod tags removed without attempt to make the articles meet accepted notability standards:

• Garnik Hovhannisyan
• Nikolay Sargsyan
• Sergey Erzrumyan
• Hovhannes Harutyunyan
• Sargis Movsisyan
• Mkhitar Grigoryan
• Samvel Petrosyan
• Gevorg Nranyan
• Gagik Simonyan
• Harutyun Hovhannisyan
• Armen Babayan
• Steven Hazarian

-English peasant 18:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. English peasant 18:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Can you clarify your nomination as to why they don't meet notability? These are all players for FC Ararat Yerevan in the Armenian Premier League, which appears to be fully professional as far as I can ascertain. --Canley (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• The articles are unsourced, there are no appearance stats or years of appearance and judging by the article creators track record probably missing important information and full of inaccuracies too. Basically the articles all fail to assert notability, they have been sitting on Wikipedia for over six months and nothing has been done to improve them. If anyone wants to find evidence that these players have played at professional level and provide reliable sources the articles can be kept. In their current state they are less than useful. English peasant 20:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Commnet: Stating that someone is a player for a fully professional team is an assertion of notability. Verification is, as you note, another matter, but the assertions are made. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• There is nothing on the FC Ararat Yerevan article demonstrating that they are a professional team, nothing on the Armenian Premier League article stating that it is a professional league and nothing to show that any of these players have actually played for the club at all, simply stating that they have played for the club could be considered an assertion of notability in ignorance of the fact that Mario1987 has written "**** currently plays for ****" for dozens of players that have never been close to first team football. If the articles are about notable subjects than what is the problem with fixing them to demonstrate it? English peasant 21:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep all They meet the football notability guidelines quoted by nominator. Tag them as unreferenced stubs by all means, but deletion is not needed – AFD is not cleanup. Nor is improvement a prerequisite for removing a PROD tag. Get WikiProject Football and WikiProject Armenia involved. Here is verification that these players play for FC Ararat Yerevan from the Football Federation of Armenia, as well as player statistics, so I am not at all convinced that these articles are even remotely unsalvagable. The fact that they are not tagged for cleanup or WikiProject support in any way is probably one of the reasons they were somewhat abandoned. I am aware that the creator of these articles has been banned for sockpuppetry, and has possibly created spurious articles in the past, but this does not make all their contributions invalid. --Canley (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to get WP:FOOTY involved on more than one occasion, the only editor helping me go through the hundreds of crap articles created by this user is Jogurney. Why should it be left to two people to clean up the enormous mess created by a problematic editor over six months? Also I have seen no evidence that the Armenian league is professional. English peasant 23:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, just click on the names! Voila! Verification of birth dates, caps and goals from the country's football authority. (OK, I see you've realised this now) I'm adding the FFA links to the articles as we speak. If you doubt that the Armenian Premier League is professional, there are better ways to verify this than nominating most of the players in the league for deletion. --Canley (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, with the exception of two players (Samvel Petrosyan and Steven Hazarian), I've added the FFA link and stats for all of the above players which verifies their team affiliation, caps and goals and date of birth. Good for you if you've attempted to fix up messy articles, but if you've assumed that all of a certain editor's contributions are invalid then you're letting yourself in for a lot of unnecessary stress. Notability and verifiability concerns have been addressed, insisting that the APL may not be a professional league is a matter which should be sorted out on that article's talk page or WP:FOOTY, not in bulk AFD discussions. --Canley (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not assumed all of his contributions are crap and unreliable, just most of them. See User:Mario1987/Football players for the scale of the problem. The vast majority of these articles do not demonstrate notability, around 15-25% of them have never played first team football and nobody except Jogurney, myself and a few random editors from German Wikipesia can be bothered to fix them. See this for an example of how Mario1987 just made things up when he didn't know the right details. Another example is Orestes Junior Alves where he provided the external link, but couldn't be bothered to type out his former clubs so left the article stating that he suddenly appeared playing professional football in Germany aged 26. Nearly every article he has created is inaccurate or misleading. English peasant 13:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, looks pretty frustrating. I noticed when looking at those Armenian articles that they seem to have been created by some kind of automated process perhaps as they all had the same quirks and errors. Sorry to give you a hard time about this, thanks for the link to Mario1987's contributions, I'll resolve to help you guys out and work on that list with you. Great work so far. --Canley (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

OK I accept that AfDing them may have been a bit excessive, but at least someone has now actually attempted to improve the articles after six months and several requests to Mario1987 and WP:FOOTY. One question I need to ask though; is false information better than no information? The infobox in this article Sergey Erzrumyan now states that he made his debut in 2007 aged 26, making 23 appearances between January and April 2007. I'm fairly sure this is not true but don't have a clue where to look for his actual career statistics English peasant 12:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've started to add career history to the articles per www.eufo.de (which is a reliable source, but I'm not adding cites for each season). The articles are a real mess and Steven Hazarian doesn't appear on the eufo.de squad listing or on the FFA squad listing. Either the article is about a youth player or a hoax. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Sergey Erzrumyan He played in the fully professional Russian First Division in 2002. Jogurney (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - AfD is not the place to complain about the state of these articles. ugen64 (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge into MD-1#2008. Article does not substantiate stand-alone notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Kratovil

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

This article fails notability criteria for politicians, the subject is an unelected candidate for a political office, no indication of notability for anything else. The article is probably just a tool used to help the campaign in which case it also fails WP:NOT. See similar debate. SWik78 (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep (edit: could also live with merge as a second choice) he appears to have built up a pretty solid body of coverage by reliable sources independent of him. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable, although the creator has tried hard to make the subject appear so. Dreamspy (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Through such nefarious tactics as citing coverage by reliable third party sources? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I see your point, but the sources cited do not show notability in any way, only that he has had a lacklustre political career to date. Dreamspy (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, unsuccessful political candidate. Some local press coverage, but nothing to indicate substantial, non-local notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC).
• Keep, Major party candidate for US House who has won primary.Naraht (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I read Mr. Bulten's entry here and am changing my vote to Merge and redirect. Whoever wins the MD-1 2008 election gets a Wikipedia page just like any other member of the US Congress.Naraht (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete; as per Lankiveil. Local newspapers have a lot of stuff that is just sub-encyclopedic. I don't see the solid body of coverage by reliable sources; the article cites two articles in local newspapers, an opinion page in a local newspaper, and PolitickerMD.com, which I'm guessing is the equivalent of a local newspaper. Not one of the reliable sources mention anything besides the current election; they don't discuss the man or anything of a biographical nature.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect straightforwardly into a new section: MD-1#2008. Trim to two paragraphs and add two paragraphs from the challenger (and anything else useful). Then the community can sort it out there. Use my work at TX-14 for ideas. I will keep making this suggestion every time I see such a case, in the hopes that as 2008 progresses folks will realize the validity of putting the highlights of current-campaign material into the district pages. It neatly resolves both sides of the argument. The sources are reliable, they mention basically only the election, the election is a proper topic for the district page, so merge trumps deletion, QED. If notability fails at the MD-1 article, the coverage can calmly dwindle to zero, just as it did for andymann2008.com, who used to be in TX-14 and Ron Paul article until his campaign failed to materialize. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per John J. Bulten's excellent argument. The sources are primarily about the election. Dimitrii (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Increasingly important article with more potential sources via Google News. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep obviously this article passes the standards of being considered notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurowoofwoof111 (talk • contribs) 26 March 2008
• Merge and redirect, also per John J. Bulten's excellent argument. TerriersFan (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The inSpectres

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

Creator removed the speedy, but as there is one source, I decided to send it here. This organization doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria; I searched using Google News and Findarticles and couldn't find any sources at all writing about this organization. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Obvious spam, created by Theinspectres‎  (talk · contribs). Also, no sign that the source listed is even reliable to begin with. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. My gosh, it's Ghostbusters... while it meets WP:INTERESTING I'm afraid I couldn't find sources that would allow the writing of an independent article, so fails WP:N Xymmax (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:SPAM. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was merge to Faith No More. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Hudson

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

Has no notability outside of Faith No More — Balthazar ^(T|C) 17:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep My personal opinion is that members of notable bands are notable, but there seems to be a few people who disagree. This article, however, contains so little biographical information, it could quite easily be merged with Faith No More. --Canley (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect With his notability in question, and a paltry amount of information provided, doesn't seem to be much reason to keep it. SingCal 23:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge, I would say that a core member of a notable band probably deserves their own bio, but Hudson wasn't a core member of FNM, only appearing on one album. Info can easily be included in Faith No More. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC).
• Merge - Although he is not notable enough to have his own article he is notable enough to have his own sub-section under the article Faith No More. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abelian grape

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

An article about a nonnotable mathematical joke. Wikipedia is not a jokebook. P.S. an the pun is very poor. `'Míkka>t 17:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete As above comments. BigDunc (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above, plus, nothing links to it. --Atlantima (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• It's a pretty well-known joke, but still, it's a joke. Delete. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. It's about as notable as a bad mathematics joke can be (which may well not be notable enough). Certainly plenty of Google hits, for what it's worth. Klausness (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete stupid -- Y not be working? 21:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Abelian group. There are many Google hits to sites telling or referring to the joke but not writing non-trivially about it. Plausible search term for people who don't know it's a joke. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to mathematical joke. It's a well known joke, but does not merit its own article. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, because not notable. Well known does not imply notable. For something to be notable, it must not only be mentioned but also be analysed. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per Gandalf. It's been a part of the culture for a few decades, so it's not inappropriate to mention it, but it's not all that good either. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge I would prefer the target to be Abelian group, since it's not one of the listed jokes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. There are myriads various puns, witticisms, inside jokes in the world in various languages. Not notable to include anywhere. Unless you may find an boook that has encyclopedic discussion of this joke: origins, authorship, explanation, etc. Mukadderat (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Have you seen the Google scholar hits? And the thousands of Google web hits probably also has interesting mentions. This is not just any math joke. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Indeed. Notable enough to get over 4,000 Google hits and to be mentioned in MathWorld, which references Renteln, P. and Dundes, A. Foolproof: A Sampling of Mathematical Folk Humor. Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 52, 24-34, 2005. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment So what? The joke was reprinted. Many jokes are reprinted. I dont' say it is not a funny joke for mathematicians. The objection was that it lacks "encyclopedic discussion of this joke: origins, authorship, explanation, etc.", i.e., lacks encyclopedic notability. Or at least the article does not demonstrate it. Mukadderat (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete the tag {{funnybut}} would appear to give the most appropriate reasons for this. As well as WP:NOT. BigHairRef | Talk 19:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see the point of making abelian grape an article. It's just not an important topic, unlike the Wiener sausage article I recently created. Now Zorn's Lemon on the other hand. Now that I would support! --C S (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Boy, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised but Udonknome (guy right below me) nominated Wiener sausage for AFD. Craaaazy. And I gave it as an example of something that shouldn't be deleted! --C S (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: as BigHairRef said... Udonknome (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete --Alterrabe (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. -- Fropuff (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Hu12 (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry Sanders Creative Design Competition

Jerry Sanders Creative Design Competition (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO Hu12 (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a biography, user BEETSTRA instructed me to create the article. the competition is mentioned in the creators wikipedia article as well for notability. It is in its 21st year as well. Engineer4life (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Fails Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not then--Hu12 (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

can you be specific as to what section? Engineer4life (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC) In addition, by comparing other articles in the Robotics Competition category, I don't see what the article violates. The others are not labeled AFD. Engineer4life (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If you add some references from primary reliable sources (not from organisation/persons that are involved, but from other places), then you show notability.

By the way, I think:

• keep, Jerry Sanders is a real person, there seems to be media attention, and the robotics team also seems notable. The articles can use some serious work, though, see WP:MOS. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Withdraw Nomination. perhaps premature. Lets see where its at after being worked on some more.--Hu12 (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No Consensus defaulting to Keep. There is no consensus that I can see between those who think the list is inherently POV and unmaintainable, and those who think the issues with the list can be solved and that it is a valid topic for a list. I encourage those who think it should be kept (and others of course!) to discuss on the talk page ways to improve the list. Davewild (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of countries by formation dates

List of countries by formation dates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination, this article was tagged as prod, but was previously kept in an AfD. Switching to AfD on behalf of the nominator, User:Largoplazo -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion text follows:

Two reasons:

• 1. The "formation date" of a country is an inherently subjective or even made-up term so this list can't help but be a perpetual WP:NPOV violation.
• 2. "List of countries by [characteristic X] implies a list in order by value of characteristic X, whether in ascending or descending order, and indeed there are numerous "list of countries by" articles in which the countries are arranged in the expected order. This article lists countries by continent and then alphabetically, and merely has data about supposed formation dates.

Therefore, the article's title is a misnomer and the article doesn't serve the purpose implied by its title.

Summary: the current and potential utility of this article are both low.

This is not a vote, but a discussion. Voice opinions, not numbers.

Note to closing Admin: please review this edit which totally rearranged this AFD discussion page. Another User subsequently tried to restore the page, here, but it is tremendously difficult to discern if any contributions have been lost or distorted. Is this kind of disruptive behaviour acceptable? Should the User who tried to rearrange the whole AFD discussion be warned not to repeat such edits in future? --Mais oui! (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For some reason this editor dislikes me and wishes to create ill will. I have attempted to communicate with him numerous times only to be rebuffed. All I did was try to facilitate the discussion by grouping them into categories. Nothing more nothing less. I didn't think about numbering them, I should have made them bullet points. When objections arose I did not revert since I thought their objections notable, reasonable, and honest. I would request this user to go through with his challenge to my honour and check that edit and see if their can be found any discrepancies, omissions, or any disingenuous actions I undertook to undermine this AfD. Instead of carefully worded slights you could at least let people know what you find. I honestly do not understand why you have such a low opinion of myself or my contributions when before this month I had nothing but high regards to yours. But this petty bantering and refusal to talk is rather beneath both of us. Isn't It? Please lets come back to the round table that Wikipedia is and work together to make this encyclopedia the best it can be. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely UKPhoenix' neutrality indicates that he didn't, nor would wish to, distort or in anyway alter any comments/votes. Please take the time to look at UKPhoenix's rearrangement. It is actually quite helpful. Particularly these AfD votes, that dont have any "support" or "oppose" areas, can become very confusing...--Camaeron (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to my defense. If consensus is to reinstate it then I will, though I don't think it would be appropriate to number them. But yes! any comments yet? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I like it. Since we have multiple dates for a number of countries, I think it best to list them in the general order of creation rather than by any one date. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you put this under the wrong conversation. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about your rearrangement. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh... Sorry about that. Any other ideas or comments? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep! Sure it needs a bit of a clean up but this article is very useful. Difficulty maintaining NPOV is not a reason to delete an article... --Camaeron (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

  Comment : Perhaps it would be a good idea to rename this page to " List of countries by date of statehood" as the meaning of country varies, the meaning of state, admittedly does too, but not as much! --Camaeron (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The subject itself is notable and verifiable. This is not grounds for deletion. It may be grounds for changing the article's title and to include some general guidelines to reach a consensus on 'formation', but this is the improper forum for that proposal. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - as one massive big POV-magnet. The entire concept of the article is a breach of WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. The History is littered with WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:MADEUP travesties. If someone can provide me with a list of respectable external refs which prove that this is a valid encyclopaedic topic then it would be some progress, because despite many such appeals not one valid ref has ever been provided. --Mais oui! (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - as this article is useful. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The list is not actually arranged by date and so is both misleading and redundant to List of countries. Since various dates are tenable for each country, such as Egypt there is no obvious rearrangement which will improve matters. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. {{Infobox Country}} has parameters established_event1/established_date1 .. established_event9/established_date9 , reflecting that many countries have multiple candidate dates. The only way to make the list-article work is to have three columns: "country - established_event - established_date" and copy-paste the dates and types from the corresponding country-article's infobox. Anything else is an automatic {{Contradict-other}} tag for both the list-article and the country-article. Any debate over a particular date can take place on the country article rather than the list article, since there are likely to be a greater number of informed contributors there. jnestorius^(talk) 18:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That was a very good comment. Wouldn't you like to vote, what are your views on the matter? --Camaeron (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikipedia is not a democracy so I don't feel obliged to vote. In its current format, it's useless and should go. If someone is willing to put in the effort to convert the article to a reasonable format, it should stay. (I am not that person.) It would require about the same effort to recreate from scratch, so it hardly makes a difference. jnestorius^(talk) 18:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is afd - no-one "votes" here. The important thing is the flow of debate and the consensus which is reached in it. Grutness...wha? 09:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete this article will either become forgotten and full of errors/contradictions or be a perpetual string of pointless arguments. Countries such as Egypt, China, or England have long histories full of various constitutional events - creating enough space to accomodate all those AND accomodate (say) East Timor won't work. Secondly why would anybody look up this article? The useful information is on the country's own page and hence this article is only useful for cross comparison -but in many cases you wouldn't be comparing like with like. Perhaps a list of countries by dates of independence, with countries that don't have such a date ommitted or noted as such? Nick Connolly (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I feel this is a valuable reference tool. And I don't buy the argument that it would become full of errors. For one thing, countries don't retroactively change their creation dates (i.e. the US won't decide that it was founded on July 3). Just like every other article, there will be people who will police this and make sure any errors are corrected. 23skidoo (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment the errors arise because the wrong significance can be given to particular dates. For Example the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland isn't even 100 years older making it younger than the US or Australia - but that is highly misleading because Britain is actually much older dating back to the Act of Union and England and Scotland even older. The UK desn't have neat founding dates or clear constituional status (go to Talk:London and see if London is the capital of England or not....). Even the USA is problematic - the signing of the decleration of independence, the end of the war of independence and the signing of the US constitution are all dates which arguably mark the formation of the USA. If we use the criteria used for the UK (when it gained or lost constituent bits) then the current USA was formed when Alaska became a state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Connolly (talk • contribs) 18:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Well organized presentation of information, parameters are spelled out, and, as others point out, it has been well-maintained (since Sept. '05). Although there are additions that can and should be made, dates of sovereignty and dates of establishment of the current form of government are verifiable from many sources (e.g., World Almanac). As others have pointed out, the governments of these nations identify (and celebrate) when the nation came into being. Edit as necessary... Mandsford (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - if kept, then either the format of or the title of this page needs to be changed. As it stands, this is not a "list of countries by formation date" - it is an alphabetical list of countries showing their formation dates. A list of countries by formation date by definition would either start with the oldest and finish with the newest or vice versa - it wouldn't go from A to Z. Grutness...wha? 02:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that list is sure to go down a blast. :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the page should be what the page says it is. At the moment it isn't. BTW, who's idiotic idea was it to refactor this page so that all the keeps are in one place, all the deletes are in one place, and answers to individual comments are no longer immediately after the comments they refer to? We're already having editors who are having to link individual comments on different parts of the page (such as Hobbeslover's note against one of the keep !votes above) - it just ruins the flow and disrupts the purpose of the page. AFD pages are kept in discussion order to make it easier to read the way opinions change as the discussion continues. By refactoring it like this is makes it look like a simple tally-up, which it never is (there are no votes at afd, only voiced opinions). The flow of opinion back and forth is far more important in the discussion of an AFD, both from the point of view of the final outcome and for people entering into the debate as it progresses. I'd like to see this put back into the usual format, like it was before someone decided to mess it up. Grutness...wha? 09:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I was surprised when I saw this page - too much focus on numbers and not enough on opinions. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC) PS: I just rearranged it, hopefully I didn't screw anything up too badly. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just factored in the comments where they're meant to be, too :) I don't think you screwed anything up - hope I didn't! Grutness...wha? 10:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep So what if it's a list of things available on other pages? If it's verifiable information (as noted by Mandsford), it's helpful to have them in a big list. We list US states by statehood date (see U.S. state); if we can get verifiable dates for countries, it's at least as helpful. And look at the criterion for sovereignty: it's apparently using a strict bit of when the country had its own government; nobody believes that Japan first began to exist in 1952, but that's listed as when the country last began to rule itself. Seems somewhat of an odd criterion, but it's good enough to enable the article to be POV. It's useful, it's in line with policy, and I can't see why we should delete it. Nyttend (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral - I could go either way rather easily. On one hand this is a page that has a troublesome history and is a magnet for people to tout their views (dates going back to 3,000BCE are ridiculous). While editors trying to make some sense of this page and are willing to work on it only get hounded by other editors as proliferators of OR while themselves not willing to assist in improving the article (not trying to point fingers or start an argument here btw, no need for that). On the other hand I don't believe that confusion on the name or POV claims are valid reasons for deletion only a call for a massive re-working of this page & better definitions given that will ensure correct and non OR dates given. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep Useful as hell! I don't see how formation date is POV, care to explain further? The Dominator (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Read my comment (#5, delete) for some more insight. There are some countries where it declares itself as independent but is not recognized as such by any other country, even today? In this case, what is its date of formation? What about countries with many different important dates, each of which could be a date of formation? Tibet and Kosovo are good examples. It's POV because if you are Tibetian, you would say your "country" was formed on this date, but if you are China, you will say another thing. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 07:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

    Not to mention the whole "My country X dates back to 900,000 BC when the cave-men drew our coats of arms on cave walls" thing that some nationalists are ever so fond of. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

    • If a country alone recognizes itself as independent then it is not independent, not unless the country that it wishes to be independent of grants it independence. Also, just because an article is prone to POV pushers isn't a reason to delete, we wouldn't delete an article on 9/11 because people add their POVs there. However, I recognize your concern and have a proposition: in the column "Formation date" we put in all separate dates and have a large "History" or "Notes" column where everything would be explained in a brief summary style. For example; "date X, declaration of independence, date Y constitution written and date Z UN approval" with a short history of how things happened at different times, this would make the article not only less POV, but also have it containing more useful info. Thoughts? The Dominator (talk) 04:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
      • This idea would definitely work, but I don't think it's an "excellent idea" in terms of should we implement this. This would just create a large mini-article for every country. We already have country articles, and we have lists of the countries in the world. I think we should just delete this and use those two existing lists to cross-reference each other. Yes, it won't be as convenient as having one page, but having one page won't really work: it will either be flawed or too large and duplicate data. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 06:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I disagree, country's formation dates are a major research thing and sure people could read the respective country articles, but if somebody is looking for just formation dates they would have to search a whole bunch of different articles, it's more convenient to have it all in one article, IMHO. The Dominator (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Strong Delete - Hmm, tough call. Even though the article can be useful and is likely to get reincarnated in some form by users unaware of our AfD, the article is somewhat strange, to put it mildly ("Birth of current form of government" - that sounds painful and wrong). The events are for the most part sourced on their respective pages. Then again the list is basically infeasible, from Serbs deleting Kosovo to evil nationalist Czechs (*waves*) unhappy about the 1993 date there's bound to be conflict. I think this kind of thing is best left to the individual country pages which manage it more than sufficiently in two or three significant dates with the consensus of the community - changes to this article easily get overlooked. PS: No, I'm not voting delete because of the 1993 date. I'm better than that. :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see this being useful: honestly, who would ever search for this? Further more, per some of the above, this is hopelessly WP:OR. You can't just create an list of "countries" with dates. What does it mean to be a country? What is a "formation date"? This is a neat concept within the modern thinking, e.g., the United States has a neat date of July 4, 1776 and 1783 as the end of the Revolutionary War, so we have some simple markers to go by. Even so, the US has TWO dates, what exactly is our "date of formation"? And the US is a simple case, what about countries such as Kosovo who has declared independence but is not recognized by any country? There are just too many problems with this list. Lists are good for some things but the nature of countries/nation-states is something that requires much more analysis than a list. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 07:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

'Who would search for this is not a relevant argument'. There are many, many things on Wikipedia that I would like to apply that to (List of awards and nominations for American Idol contestants), believing that it's useless information. However, this is useful to someone. Someone could be doing a project on the longest established government still in existence today; that would be a prime use for this article.

The problems that most people seem to have are either "people will vandalize it", and "there are multiple dates". Both of these baffle me. If we can't reach a consensus on the establishment of the US government here, then why is it on United States of America? Why can't that information be included here? As for vandalism, that's simply an inane argument. This is Wikipedia. People are going to vandalize and POV-bomb everything.

A country would be a date (or dates, if one isn't available) upon which the country became sovereign under that given regime. For entities such as Kosovo; that is far too modern. For the time being, relevant entries regarding obviously notable government-starting dates can be entered (e.g, if/when the UN recognizes their sovereignty), along with the date they declared independence, just as the page for the United States lists both the date of the signing of the Declaration and the close of the Revolutionary War.

Regarding the duplication of information, that is, and has never been, a problem with Wikipedia. Wiki is not paper. If it presents the format in a more useful format for a given purpose, then it's fine, and ipso facto, listing them by their formation date does that. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Plus, the AfD "summary" has nothing to do with the two reasons listed above it. Mrprada911 (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  And your contribution to the debate would be? This is not a vote. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• VERY STRONG DELETE. The parameter used for sorting the list is POV per definition. For example Jacques Chirac once said France is the oldest nation state in the world together with China. I think he was right because the King of France manage very early in the Middle Ages to create a uniform nation state. Some dates the creation of France back to the Baptism of Clovis. Others to the reconquest of France by Jeanne d'Arc. Ask any German when Germany was founded: there is only one possible answer: 1870 by Bismark though many will say afterwards but the Federal Republic of Germany was founded by Adenauer in 1949. So the whole list is a big POV article which has no place at all in any encyclopaedia! Vb (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Most states have their founding date in their articles. This article should be retitled "List of countries by date of statehood," since "countries" don't get founded. The geography of some island countries has been stable on a timespan of millions of years, give or take a few volcanoes and changing sea levels, while the political governance of states varied greatly. I have issues with many of the dates, such as Cuba having the 1868 date for when someone started an independence movement, and ignoring that Spain continued to rule until the US kicked them out, and ignoring the change to the Castro regime 50 years ago. Some of the European and African states occupied by the Axis are said to start their independence when the Nazis were booted out, but some of them basically went back to their pre-invasion governance. Many of the states only date from when a European power granted them their independence from colonial occupation, which is a date celebrated in those states. I have some problems with the aspect of the "statehood timer" being reset by a foreign occupation: If Canada and Mexico invaded the US while US troops were overseas fighting the Global War on Terror and operated an occupation government for a short while until the US troops could be brought home, and the US government resumed its preoccupation functioning, it should not make the US the newest state in the world. Similar arguments should apply to some of the states occupied during World War 2. I would strongly disagree with a listing in order by age, since that would invite instability and edit warring based on national pride. It is an encyclopedic and useful assemblage of documentable information. Collaborative editing and watchlisting can keep it encyclopedic and up to date. Edison (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't understand. You opt to keep this article, and say that it's salvageable, yet list a large number of complaints that I don't believe can be adequately addressed without having a mini-article for each country in this list. Care to explain? Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 17:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Title should be changed to "List of countries by formation date of current regime" or scrapped. Several dates are already at variance with their corresponding country article, and the sovereignty dates given are highly dubious and reek of original research. Furthermore, this article will become a magnet for militant POV edits that are unlikely to be properly policed by each country's respective community. Drachton (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not necessary, since we have articles for the current regimes rather than the location of the country. e.g, People's Republic of China is the regime, China is the place. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Keep for the time being at least. It's just one way of sorting information and could conceivably be useful to high school students. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I would side on keeping it, mainly that many of the places listed are valid & quickly informative. Of course the word "formation" may not be the best word to use (since some places have been around since antiquity), but most of the countries in it's present state did come into existence this past century. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep Although the date of formation of a country can be a matter of debate, there is usually considerable consensus on a short handle of dates for most countries.--Damifb (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep but radically reform. The information here is highly useful, but the current format is not. This list is the result of a good-faith attempt at merging two previous articles: List of countries by date of statehood and List of countries by date of independence, but unfortunately that attempt has failed to produce a list with any semblance of stability, leading up to this AfD. The former lists were far more useful, in my opinion, and were around longer than the current list in its present form and while controversial, were not nearly as unstable as the list is now. The problem, I think, stems from trying to define dates for "statehood", "independence", "acquisition of sovereignty", and "birth of government" in a manner that can be consistently applied to all countries worldwide. Such a task would inherently be based on original research and will continually fail to maintain a neutral point of view. I'm not even sure why "Date of most recent significant territorial modification" is in this list, as it was added after the merger and does not seem to me to have the same significance as do dates of independence or a union establishing a new country. However, I believe there is no doubt that most of the dates presented in the first two columns are significant nationhood events, and a list of those events presented chronologically would be extremely useful. I propose this list be reformed and renamed to List of significant nationhood events (I got the phrase "significant nationhood event" from the CIA World Factbook FAQs where it addresses how "Independence" dates are established). Please see the talk page for an example of how such a page might look. DHowell (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral for now. If this list is deleted so must Date of independence of European countries and a watch must be permanently kept for the recreations that will most likely occur. I think there is a place for this article in an ideal form, but I fear it will be riddled with consensus problems and of course trolling. Inge (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Systems Collapse

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

Not notable, only claim to notability is having past members that have gone on to be in a notable band — Balthazar ^(T|C) 17:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Anything worthwhile can be merged into the main article. --John (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC (a band is not notable enough if you can't even find out who all the members are). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Laughton

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

Does not meet WP:BIO all sources provided are trivial. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete - agreement with the directly above... --Camaeron (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --TM 18:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, sources provided are not independent enough for my liking, or to promote notability. Sporting achievements are equally non-notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was Closed as no reason for deletion has been asserted. When a merge is proposed, the article is usually redirected after the merge, not deleted, in order to preserve author attribution in the article's history. A merge should subsequently be discussed at the article's talk page, not in AfD. Also, the article is currently a Good article nominee (on hold). If there was a reason to delete, it would not even be considered for GA review in the first place. — Edokter • Talk • 18:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Astrid Peth

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

A one-off character - brilliant as she was, doesn't really deserve her own article. I would suggest that as a character, she is non-notable. As a part of the episode - even the main part of the episode - she undoubtedly is, and should therefore form a part of the episode's article. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep You are aware that the article is currently a GA-onhold, right? WP:notability (fiction) allows nn spin-off articles when encyclopedic tratment is apparent, which is the case here. (As I am the GA reviewer, I also thought in hindsight that she may be merged into the article of the episode she appeared it, but that's a question for merging, not AfD.) – sgeureka ^t•c 17:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. This stub does not verify that the subject meets the notability guidelines at WP:BIO. The scientist may merit a mention in the article Alien Planet if other contributors are also mentioned. As other contributors are not mentioned, merger of this material would be problematic at this time with regards to WP:WEIGHT. Consensus here is that until more reliable sources can be found to verify notability, the individual is presumed insufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Randy Pollock

Randy Pollock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Has been declined speedy, but I don't feel that it satisfies notability guidelines. I don't feel strongly about this, but it should be deleted unless more verifiable and sourced content is added, IMDb is not considered a reliable source. The Dominator (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Dominik... I do feel the article meets notability guidelines, in that Mr Pollock's research & designs for spacecraft instrumentation for probes outside the solar system will be strongly influential in the construction of such probes.

I dispute the contention that IMDb is not a reliable source. It is maintained by members & is fact-checked daily... Hmmm sounds a little bit like Wiki. Aside from the levity, IMDb's membership are industry insiders with a strong financial interest in its accuracy and any errors are vigorously eliminated.

Perhaps, this would be better handled as a stub off of Pollock (disambiguation)? TexasRazor (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"Sounds a little bit like Wiki" That is the exact reason it's not considered a reliable source. I myself have been pushing for the use of IMDb as a RS, but if you really check and ask around it's not. I find it acceptable to be used as a source for credits, others probably will not. As for the notability, have any books or academic papers been published where this person has been mentioned? Currently I don't think the article satisfies WP:NN. Oh, and in an AfD in case you don't know, add your "vote" before your reasoning like delete bolded, it makes the organization of it easier. The Dominator (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I think the discovery channel paragraph about him is a reliable source (and discovery channel is not his employer, so it counts as third party). That's why I declined the speedy. But I don't think it's sufficiently in-depth, it's only one source, and it doesn't really say anything notable about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Retain or convert to stub? Thanks for your response, David. I know Wiki policies discourage stubs, but I'll continue to improve the article until a sufficient number of sources are obtained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasRazor (talk • contribs) 19 March 2008

• Delete the stub that doesn't even effectively assert notability. If he becomes notable it will be very easy to restart the article. Dimitrii (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)