Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 19

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mysore Education Society Kishora Kendra School

Mysore Education Society Kishora Kendra School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No claim of notability. The page itself is apparently semi-protected, with a history of vandalism. Montchav (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I live in the city of Bangalore, where this school is located and it is fairly well known among the populace of the city. I have cleaned up the article now and have provided citations to reliable mainstream newspapers to assert notability. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 15:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 15:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Cleaned up by Amarrg. Plenty of news mentions. utcursch | talk 12:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 13:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - this is notable, major school that educates through to pre-university. The article includes multiple, reliable secondary sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan 19:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep seems notable Noroton (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 significant coverage in reliable sources has not been produced to meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roland Nicholson

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

Unsourced for any of the claims that are made. And those claims made still do not rise to the level of notability, IMHO. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I find lots of stuff for Roland Nicholson Jr. but most of them are minor sites. The article needs to get som WP:RS... even then it dosen't quite seem to pass WP:N. If it were better referenced I'd say merge it into Electoral Reform Society --Pmedema (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment- I understand that Roland Nicholson has been involved in the monitoring of elections in Africa and the Balkans, but my reason for inclusion has to do with his role as an opponent and international spokesperson against capital punishment. I first saw him on a BBC program where he spoke out in support of the EU maintaining the ban on capital punishment among EU members. He invoked the late Hon. Nigel Nicolson and made a stirring call for the universal abolishment of the death penalty. This is why students in my country and others study his writings and the path he took to his position.

{User Guyana Barrister} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyana Barrister (talk • contribs) 18:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- This page seems to be about Roland Nicholson, Jr., A page that has been deleted twice per CSD A7(Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance. There is less information in the current edition of this article than in the previous two that were deleted.Triple3D (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

There is also a page, Roland Nicholson,Jr., that has been deleted and locked by an administrator because of numerous attempts at recreation.Triple3D (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete In that case it needs to be deleted and salted.--Pmedema (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep/Delete/wait I am currently in discussion with the articles' creators. They say they have severatl sources. I have told them the areas they can look up in WP to help with citation and such. I propose we wait until further action by them to try and source the article.Dædαlus T@lk\^{→quick link} 21:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I would not object to a relist for another five days if there does indeed appear to be progress on sourcing his notability. But even if the article is deleted today or tomorrow, I would gladly userfy it for you and the original author to continue to work on. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, lets see what comes up in the next 5 days. No problem here. --Pmedema (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, neither you nor I will make the descision on relist or not. That will be up to whoever comes along to close it. We can, and effectively have, expressed our opinion that it should be relisted, but someone else will make the actual choice. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that we do not, I am asking whoever is in control here to give it 5 more days.Dædαlus T@lk\^{→quick link} 06:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Okay. You got your extra five days, Daedalus969. Make the most of it. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope I can, I haven't yet obtained a response. Neither from the article creators, or something that my response has been noted, such as sources on the article in question. I may end up moving the article to my own userspace until the article creators can find links to the sources. I honestly don't know what to do here, I'm just trying to help them.Dædαlus T@lk\^{→quick link} 06:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I have googled the heck out of this article and could not find links to any of the "other writings" talked about in it. I did find letters that Nicholson wrote to newspapers that were apparently published, but no published "works". He seems to be a good guy, but nothing that notable that can be found on the web. There is no evidence that he was even the chairman of the Fortune Society, though he currently is a board member. Triple3D (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete.... again - EAGHEAGHEAGH! The buzzer has sounded! Nothing done. To the editor who wanted time to source the article... please don't waste peoples time like this. Sorry... it was Daedalus who was trying to get the editors to fix it up but they didn't respond. --Pmedema (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• *Sigh* Oh well, I tried. It seems they didn't have as much commitment as I thought they did. Even though the timer is up, I still hope they respond at some point in the future to the messages I left on their talk pages noting that I copied the article into my own userspace for them to source without having to worry about the deletion. Thanks for giving them one more chance dear admins, I only wish the creators could have used it.Dædαlus^{→quick link} / Improve 17:52, 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 speedy delete under criterion A7 as a group without a shred of asserted notability. —C.Fred (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kaziz

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

Contested prod. Can't really tell what's going on here, but at least the article doesn't meet WP:BIO, and the source cited in the article is seemingly non-relevant. The last sentence "Please submit any information to Sir Ronald MacDonald so we can expand this article" also smells hoax-y. Nsevs • Talk 23:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• SUPERMASSIVE HUGE DELETE random crappy article on a couple from manchester righting biased irrelevant unotable nonsense about themselves.XCharltonTilliDieX (talk) 00:02, 20 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. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Bad Girls: Extra Time episodes

List of Bad Girls: Extra Time episodes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article refers to a fan made video on internet site You Tube, which is allegedly a 'spin-off' from ITV series Bad Girls. The makers of the show and the station are NOT involved with the video, which features on-screen text only, referring to what the fan would have liked to have happened in the TV series. The site also offers NO references or sources. The article originally claimed the show was made by Shed productions who made the original TV series, thus being a lie. Therefore i see no purpose for this article other than to advertise the makers videos in a bid to receive more hits on the external site. This i believe constitutes not only a hoax but Spam. And i see no evidence as to why this article would be of interest to the reader, or for that matter what the purpose of it is. It is certainly not worthy of an article in an online encyclopedia in my opinion! Lisabutcherhill (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The YouTube series doesn't have a page, nor does it seem to be the subject of any sources. Therefore, this supposedly inaccurate and unsourced list has no place on Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per the Hammer. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom as non-notable web content. This is indeed a fan-made series consisting almost entirely of on-screen text. Basically, it is fan fiction with occasional music and frequent misspellings. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 08:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral! the article does seem unencylopedic, but it could be cleaned up to a formal look. Dwilso (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Cleaning up the article's formatting doesn't address the verifiability and notability problems, though. Delete as non-notable fan-made media. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 17:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - List is completely unencyclopedic..not in format, but in content. There are no references, no hints at notability, and fails WP:INTERNET. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral With a lot of work, it could be made into a substantial article. --Sharkface217 02:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And like I said before, reformatting this article still wouldn't fix the verfiability and notability problems of the subject. This series hasn't been covered in reliable sources, so the article's got to go. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per NeoChaosX and all above. JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per TenPoundHammer. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 05:35, 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. Singularity 23:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leejay Abucayan

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

This is a self-promotional, vanity entry by a teenage rapper without any verifiable national, state, or local notability whatsoever. The article was previously tagged by other editors as having notability issues and being completely devoid of supporting references of any kind. The article, which was created by a Single Purpose Account, is in fact nothing more than a cut-and-paste of the teenager's MySpace page, as can be seen here[1]. Overall, the article dismally fails WP:MUSIC. The guy has never had a record deal of any kind and does not make a living through music. According to his website, he still lives at home with his parents. We can't have every teenage rapper/beatboxer repasting vanity MySpace pages here and calling them encyclopedia articles. With too many of these young musical kids who repost their MySpace pages to Wikipedia, the "encyclopedia articles" are still up long after the "musicians" have had to abandon music to grow up and get real jobs, unrelated to the music field. The earlier editors who tagged the problems with this one were right. Leesome (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• delete crappy vanity article copy n pastes off myspace XCharltonTilliDieX (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a far cry from WP:N, and notwithstanding the COI drama. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. This is a commentary on the long statement below by the article's subject. I'm going to try to say this with as much sensitivity and respect as possible. I sincerely believe that it is the personal responsibility of every human being to live with as much integrity as possible. Certainly, Mr. Leejay has the right and opportunity to complain about all of the deletion votes, as he does below. Unfortunately, I don't think he advances his cause, however. Sometimes in life, the best thing to do is not to complain. I wish that this counsel had been followed in this matter, for now I must come to the difficult part of the post. The point I wish I didn't have to make. Mr. Leejay, sir, you say that you are not the author of the article in question. And yet, these are the facts: The article is a word-for-word cut-and-paste of your own personal MySpace page. I want to make clear that I am not calling you a liar, sir, as the article may have been nothing more than a misguided copyright violation on the part of a third party, a friend or a family member or someone else. However, it is important to remember that by becoming so defensive, you may have called your statements into question. I am going to assume the best of faith, however, and suggest that this article was simply a copyvio and is therefore deletable on that score. Thank you. Leesome (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Leejay here. This "article for deletion" post was strangely brought to the attention by my mother, who randomly received an email with this link. First of all, whoever emailed my mother, I have no idea how he/she got her email address.

"You're going to wish you never started this business. You can argue if you want to, but you're going to wish you never started this stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leejay_Abucayan#Leejay_Abucayan"

Secondly, let it be known that I did NOT create this page myself -- it was created by a fan. For anyone that is upset with "crappy vanity articles copied off Myspaces," perhaps Wikipedia itself should crack down more on posts that are being published. Whoever posted this seems pretty bitter towards these "vanity" pages of "teenage" musicians, however, keep in mind that I took no part in the creation of my Wikipedia page -- it was in the hands of a fan.

...and just for the record:
-I started as a teenager, but I am currently 21 years old
-Beatboxers are not the same as rappers -- get your facts straight
-I'm on an independent label called "The Luna Co."
-I am, in fact, "grown up" and working three "real jobs," and I've never "abandoned music"

Maybe if that's not enough...
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=oid:16144
http://www.sacmag.com/media/Sacramento-Magazine/Best-of-Sacramento/2006-Editors-Picks/index.php?cp=2&si=1
http://www.beatboxbattle.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=9
http://www.humanbeatbox.com/beatboxer_interviews/p2_articleid/142
http://www.philippinefiesta.net/old/leejay.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO7nvsf1n08
http://www.leejaybeats.com/video_gooddaysac.html
http://www.leejaybeats.com/video_studentscholar.html

Are these good enough as references?

Delete the Wikipedia page if you must. I didn't create it. --Leejaybeats (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete For not meeting the guideline set in WP:MUSIC. That said, the nom was a little more harsh than really necessary. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 08:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC and the sources given above by the subject are not reliable Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 15:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Certainly does read like WP:VANITY, but I'm reluctant to make the allegation. However, what's relevant is this :[2] - Completely non-notable, both WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree with the editor above who pointed out that none of the "sources" provided by Leejay Abucayan are reliable for establishing his "notability." Most of the material in the sources is self-generated. What little third-party material he has provided fails the standard. Look at the "article" about him in Sacramento Magazine--it's not an article at all, it's just a short blurb, and it shares the page with short blurbs about a hair salon and a car-repair shop!! Obviously, we're not going to have articles here about hair salons and car-repair places. That's NOT what personal notability is about, and that's not what an encyclopedia is about. Mr. Abucayan, please read WP:RELIABLE so that you will understand what kind of sources you need to provide to us. Leesome (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Just delete the page already. I'm not arguing with anyone. I've said countless times... this was a fan-created Wikipedia page. I never asked him to create it. I never even intended to have one made. A fan copied-and-pasted my bio onto a Wikipedia page without my knowledge. When I discovered its creation, I figured no one was going to look at it anyway, but it turns out, it has caused quite a stir, to English professors and general Internet browsers alike. If I wanted a Wikipedia page, I would have made one for myself a long time ago. "Leesome" -- I don't know if you're trying to prove anything to me, or get back at me (or my family) for anything, but if it makes you happy, have my page deleted already. What came off as my own defense to keep the Wikipedia page was simply a rebuttal to what seemed like harsh personal jabs at my career/hobby. For the last time, I didn't create it. If I'm not "notable" enough for Wikipedia, have it removed -- I'm not even fighting to keep it up. You've got my vote for deletion. Everyone wins. --Leejaybeats (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Personal attacks are not allowed on the project. Yours have been removed. Please see WP:ATTACK. Thank you. Leesome (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Sadly fails WP:Notability--Sharkface217 02:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for failing WP:Notability. Wish the lad luck, hope he can establish notability and have an article some time in the future. - House of Scandal (talk) 23:12, 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. Singularity 23:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chucky Chuck

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

This article has no real claims of notability at all. It merely describes him as a rapper and a clothes designer without expressing what accomplishments he has made that would be considered notable. No 3rd-party references are given for this article, and I've made a search for reliable sources that mentioned him and have found none. A search for news stories about him has come up dry. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:B, WP:V, and WP:N. -- Atama^chat 23:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Atama^chat 23:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - it seems to have some ok references now, but it definately needs a format cleanup XCharltonTilliDieX (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There are 2 references from Subnoize, one reference from MySpace, one reference from DGAF, all of which are primary sources and violations of WP:RS. The only 3rd party source that is claimed, and it is a dubious one, is to a supposed Sublife Magazine article about Chucky Styles but when you click the link, it doesn't take you to an article about him. Again, this article has zero credible references at all, and again there are no notability claims that satisfy WP:MUSIC. -- Atama^chat 00:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• On further investigation it looks like "Suburban Life Magazine" is the magazine for Suburban Noize Records, so it's not even a third-party source either. -- Atama^chat 00:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The references are terrible. Even if they weren't, the subject isn't notable enough to warrant an article. Hierophantasmagoria (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It is a completely self-contained culture that isn't notable at all. All of the references are basically advertisements or a page with no information. B3nnic33 (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The whole Suburban Noize Records thing is a massive walled garden with some (cough) enthusiastic fans. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• I also checked for sources in a database of newspaper and magazine articles, and found nothing. Delete per Atama. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and B3nnic33. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 08:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:V, WP:BIO. --Sharkface217 02:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Nothing compelling. No WP:RSs available, no news coverage. Just marginal myspace, blots, forums, lyrics, free downloads etc..etc.. [3], [4], and [5]. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as above. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:15, 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. Nomination withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Stevenson (academic)

Chris Stevenson (academic) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable academic, appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:PROF. No evidence of any substantial independent coverage as required by WP:BIO BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: this article is one of a series of similar stubs on staff at Dublin City University which I PRODed. This PROD was contested with the comment that "head of department should pass WP:PROF". However, being head of department is not part of the notability criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

• • Nomination withdrawn per discussion below. Since there are no delete !votes, I suggest that the AfD should now be speedily closed.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Four books published by reputable publishers and being a Professor in Ireland, looks good enough notability for me. --Bduke (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. According to her vita here, of the four books listed in the article the first two were coauthored by her, and the last two were coedited by her. As to whether these, along with her journal articles, establish notability, I'm reserving judgment for the moment. Deor (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The Dublin City University bio [6] claims that she is the first chair of mental health nursing in Ireland, which seems a significant claim to notability. She has also co-authored or edited five books, several with highly reputable publishers. On the other hand, the highest citations found for her work in Google Scholar [7] are 41 & 23 (the other C Stephensons appear to be different people), which seems to me rather low. Not my subject so willing to change my mind if new evidence is brought. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficient publications. One doesnt expect high citations in this subject. DGG (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. As well as the points made above, her research into suicide has received press coverage as shown by the first shown by the first snippet displayed by a Google News search. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Many thanks to Phil for finding that piece.
    I have a subscription to the Irish Times website, so I have read the article in full ("Professor leads research into suicide attempts", The Irish Times, 27 September 2005. Retrieved on 2008-03-20. ). The research referred to is actually a bid for funding rather than a report of completed research, but the article is a substantial (945-word) account of Stevenson's analysis of the state of suicide-prevention work in Ireland North and South. It's the only ref I could find for Stevenson on the Irish Times website, but so far as I am concerned, that one piece of very substantial coverage clearly meets the notability requirements, so I will withdraw this nomination and expand the article using that source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• comment Head of department in the UK , and universities elsewhere patterned on their system, is not just an administrative post, butthe senior academic position, corresponding approximately to a Distinguished Professorship in the US. 16:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I know, but some heads of department remain deeply obscure. Although the job is actually largely administrative, most people get a professorship only after making a substantial contribution to their academic discipline; but we still need evidence of that contribution. The professorship is no more than a good indi8cation that it's likely to be worth looking for that evidence. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Even in US universities, the chair always goes to one of the most important senior professors present. The main distinction is that in the US it usually rotates among them, rather than one person having it as a career position. (Reasonable, since the key part of the job is to attract new faculty & administer the promotions of the present ones) At all places I've known, its done by an election of the faculty, approved by the Dean or provost, who almost always accepts their recommendation. I think in the UK, being permanent, it implies even more than that. Now, the question is whether this particular university is of such as standard that the senior academics in a department there are likely to be really notable, and whether their election of someone is a guarantee of importance in the profesion. In a major university like, say, Berkeley or Oxford, there would really be no question about notability of a professor & chair. At others, yes, it can well happen that none of the full professors in a college are in any way academically distinguished. The rank only means something in terms of the rank of the school and the department. I do not really know this university, and I definitely don't trust the spam-ridden WP article on it. But from [8] it might be. Or might not. At a really major university all the senior people would have even higher publication records than some of them here do. But I think she qualifies as notable individually on the basis of her record. DGG (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Appears to have notability and the article has been cleaned up greatly. --Sharkface217 02:49, 21 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. Nobody has spoken in defense of the article. WilyD 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SimonT Hockey Simulator

SimonT Hockey Simulator (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication or notability or sources to verify such notability. PROD contested without comment by page author. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Could have probably been speedied. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

An A7 speedy was declined earlier this year, as it doesn't apply to software in general. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This software is about an Fantasy Hockey Software. Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_hockey#Simulation_Hockey_League

What I did is copy this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_Eastside_Hockey_Manager (Who is a Fantasy Hockey Software also) and change the text.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonT-Pycos (talk • contribs) 18:02, March 20, 2008

• Comment I'm surprised that this wasn't speedied. --Sharkface217 02:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Nothing444 20:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable software. Not a speedy, as software is not eligible for A7 and I'm not sure what other criteria this would meet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:11, 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, per valid concerns that this is about two people with the same name, neither of which are adequately sourced, hence the confusion. However, Rosencomet, you've brought up some very strong assertions of notability that would seem to fit our notability guidelines with sourcing for the Hawai'i writer, perhaps a new, sourced, and accurate article could be written? I would be happy to help any way I can. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pamela J. Ball

Pamela J. Ball (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Writer of some new age self-help type books, 75 unique Google hits, all book sales blurbs or lists. No obvious biographical sources, and most of this article is just a book list. Foulsham is a respectable but niche market press (I used to do contract work for them a long time ago). Guy (Help!) 22:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - The article is a long list (90% or so of the article) of non-notable books. The only link is to the article subject's personal website. Mattisse (Talk) 22:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Quite a few books, but no reliable sources to verify the content or (for the most part) that the person even exists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As per above commentz XCharltonTilliDieX (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per the Hammer. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per consensus. --Sharkface217 02:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I really don't even understand these comments. This author had two novels set in Hawaii that were best-sellers: Lava and Floating City. They are not "non-notable books". Her books show a career as an author spanning at least ten years. She has over ten books published, some by Random House [9] (10,000 Dreams Interpreted, The Complete Book of Dreams and Dreaming, and The Power of Creative Dreaming), according to their Wikipedia article "the world's largest English-language general trade book publisher", and some by Foulsham [10], a publishing company that's been in business since 1819; these are MAJOR PUBLISHERS. A google search on her name (don't forget to try Pamela Ball, rather than just Pamela J. Ball) shows her to be on the faculty of a university and to have made public appearances as an author. She's also a winner of the Hemingway Short Fiction award. What do you MEAN when you say there is no evidence that she even exists? What do you mean "verify the content", for that matter? What needs "verifying" about the content for her to have a Wikipedia article? And ALL bibliographies are lists of books; how can their length be anything but a GREATER support to the subject's notability? I just don't get this nomination; where are you setting the bar for an author's notability? Rosencomet (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added more biographical information. Please review the article before making a final decision. For instance, she has novels published by the Penguin Group and W.W. Norton, holds an M.A. in English, is a winner of the Hemingway Short Fiction Award, etc. Rosencomet (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as revised, subject appears to be notable for reasons mentioned by Rosen Comet. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: there seems to be two Pamela Balls written about in this one article: one from Hawaii who writes fiction, and the other (J.) from Britain who writes self help books. The lack of enough reliable third party sources is the reason they were confused - another good reason why encyclopedia subjects should be notable. -- Jeandré, 2008-03-23t09:00z

I can't find any record of a Pamela Ball or a Pamela J. Ball who was born in Britain or who currently lives there. Some of Ms. Ball's books on dreams and other spiritual & metaphysical topics use the middle initial "J", and some do not. Some of her books were published in the U.K., and some both in the USA and the UK, and of course some have been translated into other languages. None of the publishers of the books I have listed describe her as being from Britain. I would expect the information on the websites of Florida State University, University of Hawaii, and Foulsham Publishing to be pretty reliable. Please point me to this Pamela J. Ball from Britain that you believe there's some confusion about, because I haven't found her anywhere. And how can the author of 18 books, none self-published, not be notable? Rosencomet (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Jeandré. Daniel (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The subject would appear to not meet our current notability standards for inclusion, observed by the lack of independent, reliable sources. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete If the level of source material available doesn't make it possible to distinguish between two similarly named people they are probably not good candidates for inclusion. - cohesion 18:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Cohesion said it better than I could have. Avi (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I would have thought winning the Hemingway Short Fiction Award to be a notable achievement. Is it not? Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, I apologise if I'm incorrect, and please correct me if I am, but the Hemingway Short Fiction award does not seem to be a major competition/prize/whatever. A Google search only turned up a thousand or so hits, and most of them were polluted with references to Hemingway's own fiction. Apart from that, basically what User:Cohesion said above, I do not see that there is enough information on this person/people available to write a verifiable article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:16, 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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Juliya Chernetsky

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

Not notable. Infact i think all the templates give a better reason! Vote: Delete - TheProf | Talk 22:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep copious ghits, no news hits; some press (see fan site link), [11], [12]. JJL (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• (ec) Weak keep or Merge to Metal Asylum, which she was the host of. I would imagine that most television hosts are probably notable, but given the apparent lack of sources, I wouldn't rule out a merge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Smerge as it stands to Metal Asylum per the Duty Otter (above) Been looking thru the ghits but nothing solid enough for a Keep Plutonium27 (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Appears to have established notability. --Sharkface217 02:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per User:Plutonium27. The person does not appear to be notable outside of the context of the television programme "Metal Asylum". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC).
• Keep According to the article, she had stints on a couple of other shows, albeit brief. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

*Delete unless she gets her tits out 81.149.250.228 (talk) 15:31, 27 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. Wizardman 17:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] La Trobe University Student Representative Council

La Trobe University Student Representative Council (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization. Has a few editors who won't even allow a notability tag to remain on the article. No sources, and has been tagged for them since December 2006. Fails WP:ORG. Paddy Simcox (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - all such student union bodies must have the secondary sources needed to meet WP:ORG. It hasn't, and doesn't. TerriersFan (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• And what steps have you taken to find them that you can make such a sweeping statement? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as above XCharltonTilliDieX (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment My suspicion is there is sufficient rich history of this organisation throughout the 1970s in particular that could make this entry notable. Verifiable secondary sources may end up being offline which would make the effort greater, but could well be worthwhile. Murtoa (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral More work could make this article meet WP:ORG. --Sharkface217 02:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 22:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but cull - The organisation is probably notable (despite a total lack of sources), but just about everything is uncited and/or unencyclopaedic. So my vote would be to reduce the article to a stub until one of the regular editors can be bothered expanding the page in a helpful way. However if, as has been said above, the editors just keep reverting changes, a delete might be more appropriate. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep A significant student union involved in many political campaigns both inside and outside the university itself. A visit to the library would certainly find adequate sources for this article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:34, 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. Singularity 23:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Sidney

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

• Unsourced non-notable spammy biography, vandalized or otherwise. tomasz. 22:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete, spammy and quite obvious in its failure of WP:MUSIC (no major label albums, no chart singles, no reliable sources, etc.) Note that the links for his albums actually point to novels of the same name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:19, 19 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)} 22:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• STRONG DELETE one of the worst and most spammy articles ive ever seen XCharltonTilliDieX (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete it's not just for breakfast anymore. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

JCGoodman- I am Joe Sidney's cousin, this is a real person, a real artist. He may not have a huge single or a major label, but he is a valid artist, and this is a true entry, not a fan page! This is his bio, whether he likes it or not! Would we find Velvet Underground's bio invalid in 1965 because they hadn't met Andy Warhol yet?? I strongly discourage deletion, and would prefer an edit to wikipedia's liking. It is not fair to exclude our community's greatest living songwriter and performer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JCGoodman (talk • contribs)

• Delete Not even close to passing WP:MUSIC (based on albums, tours, sales, etc.). Being a real person doesn't make one notable (in fact, it's not even a prerequisite). Bfigura ^(talk) 03:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Could notability be established if the Hurricane Katrina claim is verified? --Sharkface217 02:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply - The article is here that covers it. Note that Great Neck musician Joe Sidney presents his Concert for Katrina Relief, Saturday, Sept. 17 at 6 p.m. at Levels in the Great Neck Library. which really says it is very local community coverage of a community event.

• Delete - no reliaqble sources to establish notability. The Katrina thing seems to be rather minor, and although a wonderful thing to be doing, appears to be a minor community fundraiser much like many others that happened about that time. -- Whpq (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per Bfigura...--Cometstyles 10:37, 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 No Consensus defaulting to Keep, DGG's research has persuaded some that he meets the relevant guideline but others remain unconvinced that he does. Davewild (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tia Keyes

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

non-notable academic; no evidence of independent coverage, let alone substantial (as required per WP:BIO). Fails WP:PROF. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Paste (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2008

(UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as above; if after nearly 2 years notability can't be asserted and backed up, then it likely never will be. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Per DGG's research, it seems notability of sorts exist, though I am unsure whether given publications are sufficient enough for a good claim of article inclusion, hence I withdraw my delete vote and take a neutral stance. I'm not saying I think it should be kept, but merely that my vote for deletion is no longer as strong, and I lack adaquate knowledge to give any credible opinion. Maybe the next step would be to properly integrate such publications into the article rather than just link or barely reference them. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Article makes no claim of notability. Check of CV on University Website and of citations on Google Scholar suggest a typical academic publication record, not "significant" and "well-known" academic work as required for WP:PROF. BRMo (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment – I remain unpersuaded by DGG's findings. Despite the recent edits, the article's lede still fails to claim notability. Her 56 published articles may meet the alternative standard mentioned in WP:PROF of "more notable than the average college instructor/professor," but that standard is not universally accepted and I personally disagree with it. If this article is to be kept, I'd like someone to explain in word (not in counts of publications or citations) why they think her work is significant, and also add that explanation to the article's lede. BRMo (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per BRMo. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and per BRMo's comments. Clearly fails WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Changing to Unsure per DGG's comments. I'd like to hear more about citation rates in physical chemistry. It sounds a bit strange to me that the number of publications of Keyes is quite high (54), while the citation rates appear somewhat low. Nsk92 (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Lecturer, not professor, with only 2 co-authored publications above 10 citations in a Google Scholar search (30 & 25) [13]. The single book has only a few citations. I see no evidence that the subject yet meets WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Changing to Weak keep, per DGG's research. I think 50 co-authored papers with only a handful having citations above 20 is fairly borderline, particularly for someone who is still at the lecturer level, but I concede that I don't have a great handle on citation frequency in physical/inorganic chemistry, and I can't see that the current article (with DGG's additions) is harming the encyclopedia. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per BRMo. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Doing the search in Web of Science, there are 54 peer reviewed papers, of which the highest have counts of 44, 39, 39, 35, and 24 respectively. 4 of these 6 were in Journals published by the American Chemical Society, the most prestigious in the subject. . This is sufficient for notability--physical chemistry is not a field with a very high density of citations. Google Scholar should not be relied on to find all references., especially for papers published before 2000, and especially for work in chemistry Many papers from ACS publications have in the past not been included there do to lack of agreement between ACS and ISI. The results here are a clear demonstrations of it. I will do a limited number of WoS searches if no one else interested has it available. I have added her most cited papers to the article. DGG (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Could you add a list of the individual highly cited papers, either here or in the article? I didn't realise that ACS journals didn't appear in Google Scholar, and agree that they are the most prestigious in the field. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Could you please provide some context — for example, among tenured physical chemists at research universities who have been publishing for about 15 years, would her publication record place her among the top 5 percent? 20 percent? 50 percent? Also, the article's text is pretty generic and doesn't establish that her work is notable. (In other words, similar text could be written about most academics, with the exception of the publication count—which shouldn't be the sole evidence of notability.) Would it be possible to add a sentence or two summarizing parts of her work that are "significant" or "well known"? — BRMo (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG. Note also that Lecturer in the Isles includes most people who in America would be called Professor. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think your interpretation of the Lecturer position is correct. From what I know about the British/Irish academic system, they have three types of positions: Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Reader, Professor. My understanding is that Lecturer roughly corresponds to Assistant Professor in the U.S. plus a little higher (probably cutting into the Associate Professor range a bit), while Professor in the British system generally means something higher than Full Professor in the U.S, with Reader being somewhere in between. Nsk92 (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any Irish Universities having a "Reader" grade of academic staff. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right! I thought that Britain and Ireland have the same academic rank system (Britain does have Readers), but I was wrong about that. I just looked up Reader (academic rank) and only UK, Australia and New Zealand are mentioned as using it. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, Reader is not universal even among UK universities. Many would just use Post-doc, Lecturer, Professor, Head of Department. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Per above posts. --Sharkface217 02:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per the rationale provided by DGG, subject appears to be notable within their field. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, would appear to meet the WP:PROF notability guidelines, particularly #4. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:20, 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 No Consensus defaulting to Keep, the sources provided during the AFD have perusaded some that it meets the notability guideline but not others. Davewild (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kaua‘i County Police Department

Kaua‘i County Police Department (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have placed a speedy deletion tag on the page, but it has been contested and removed (along with the {{hangon}}) at least twice. The article in question seems to fail WP:NPOV and possibly WP:COI Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 21:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No idea why the "AfDs for this article" is garbled. Anyway, this article fails the notability guidelines for organizations, not to mention WP:V, dashed with some likely WP:COI. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability, though I'm sure it's frequently in the local papers. JJL (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, the article itself is notable and falls under WP:WikiProject Law Enforcement. The author is very new and is unaware of some of the policies governing notability. Let's try not to bite the newcomers. S/he has also created Hawaii County Police Department, which I have cleaned up to keep it within WP:N. The author is very adept at adding valid photos and text to this wiki. Give me a chance to help the author wikify the article, take out some of the COI/advert tendancies, and add references. Thanks!--Sallicio 02:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

NOTE, I have notified the author about WP standards on his/her user talk page. I have revamped the article to remove POV, COI issues. Removed the advert-sounding recruitment section, added references and third-party citations. If anyone can see anything else that needs changing, please let me know. Aloha!--Sallicio 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I second Sallicio's motion. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 08:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Kauai County, Hawaii. I do not think that the department is notable enough for a stand-alone article, but, with Sallicio's improvements, this information would be a good addition to the article for the county.--FreeKresge (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge Per above. Notability exists, but this article may fit best as a subsection under Kauai County. --Sharkface217 02:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I see no reason why it fails notability. Sure, people all around the world don't know about the Kaua'i Police Department, but if you delete this, then why not Honolulu Police Department? Both are police departments of the state of Hawai'i that have equal importance. I believe it may fit under Kauai County, but I think that someone should create the page Police Departments of Hawaii or something of the sort and merge this article there, should it be deleted. Info on HPD and the others may be merged as well. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 08:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly there are reliable and verifiable sources. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Kauai County, Hawaii. This police department does not appear particularly notable or interesting as far as such organisations go. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:21, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theresa Lennon Blunt

Theresa Lennon Blunt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

unreferenced stub article on an apparently non-notable author, no evidence of any independent coverage BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - references do not establish notability. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It does not appear that notability has been established. --Sharkface217 02:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, appears to fall well short of the notability criteria under "Creative professionals" on WP:BIO. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:23, 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 Speedy delete by nom (page was blanked by only author). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Richards (actor)

Craig Richards (actor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable actor. Article claims he has appeared in many large films, but it seems that this is as little more than an extra. No reliable sources, no incoming links. We have fairly good articles on many of these films, and none of them mention him. Apparently written by the subject. J Milburn (talk) 21:38, 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. Singularity 23:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Chavez & The Crayons TBA

Alan Chavez & The Crayons TBA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

0 non-wiki ghits for the group; album may never have been released. Possible WP:COI issues. Prodded in 2007, but prod was contested at that time. Not eligible for prod again, so taking to AfD Fabrictramp (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete The artist doesn't appear to be notable at all; therefore, neither is the album. (I'll say it again -- in cases where the artist gets A7'd, A7 should extend to their albums as well.) I can't find any reliable sources at all for "Alan Chávez & The Crayons" either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Completely unverifiable, possibly a hoax. The article about 'Alan Chavez' (who is 16 iirc from the infobox) was speedy deleted (CSD A7) last week. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Hammer don't hurt em! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 08:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Per Hammer, consensus, precedent, etc. --Sharkface217 02:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC given all this time. Non-notable album. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:43, 21 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) 20:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pakelika Presents: Another Cult Classic

Pakelika Presents: Another Cult Classic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album by non-notable artist (whose article was deleted via AfD) with little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete If the artist isn't notable, than neither are their albums. The All Music Guide link isn't quite enough to satisfy WP:RS either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. --Sharkface217 02:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not encyclopedic enough. Dwilso 05:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, if the band is not notable, then the records probably are not either. This doesn't appear to be an exception. Fails WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:24, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Denis Casavant

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

Canadian radio sportscaster. Unable to verify claims in the article with any independent sources. No references. It does not meet the WP:BIO guidelines. Only source I could find was his bio on his blog page. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as lacking independent sourcing. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Both CKGM and RDS have articles verifying this article Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The sources need to help verify his notability not just his employment. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 02:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: as non-notable. Pluswhich (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, seems to be an unremarkable broadcaster. Fails WP:BIO notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:25, 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 No consensus (default keep). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dawn Ralph

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

Non-notable person; only editor doesn't seem to know or care what the requirements are - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails notability criteria for singers -- heck, for anything at all. Doesn't seem to be the subject of any sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with St Winifred's School Choir, not notable enough for her own page but the choir seems notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless any of it can be evidenced using external sources, in which case merge them with St Winifred's School Choir and then delete anyway. -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete An uncredited contributor to a song recorded by a school choir does not pass the requirements for WP:N of a member of a group. Appeared briefly as a talking-head on a couple of one-hit-wonder/worst-songs-ever list-type C4 TV shows a few years back, which may account for editor's assertion of notability in the hope than some of us were watching. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Did any of you people piling on with your delete comments even bother to check for sources? It only took me a few seconds to find the ones that I just added to the article. Of course the lead singer on a Christmas number one is notable. Hers is a voice that everyone in the UK over about 35 would recognise, even if most of us would be too embarrassed to admit it. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• I still don't think it matters - the artist at the time wasn't "Dawn Ralph and the St Winifred's School Choir", it was "St Winifred's School Choir", therefore, seeing as you have provided references, I say merge with St Winifred's School Choir. -- Roleplayer (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Has sources per above. Catchpole (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep reliable sources...--Camaeron (t/c) 21:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with St Winifred's School Choir, subject does not have independent notability. Half the article is explaining how happy she is NOT being in the music business. --Dhartung | Talk 22:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. You have shown in that comment that the article is about her, rather than the choir, so you are in fact giving an argument in favour of independent notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think that Dhartung is talking about the Wikipedia article, not about any article that is used as a source.--FreeKresge (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with St Winifred's School Choir. BRMo (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. She's already mentioned in the choir's article, and the only sourced information in this article (other than her role as soloist with the choir) is that she is married and has a child, which hardly seems worth merging. I could also support a redirect without merging. Deor (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge & Delete - subject herself is not independently notable, redirect unnecessary. Merge any relevant info into parent article. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to St Winifred's School Choir. The two sources are really about the choir, not about her. It is possible that some of this information could be merged into the article on the choir.--FreeKresge (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge The Choir seems notable enough. --Sharkface217 02:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The topic isn't encylopedic enough. Dwilso 18:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic and notable enough for Wikipedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Some very divergent opinions on this AfD! I will go for Merge and Redirect to St Winifred's School Choir, as this person does not appear to be notable outside of her achievements with that group. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC).
  • Merge and redirect to St Winifred's School Choir , seems to be notable more distinctly as a choir .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 23:04, 27 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. Singularity 00:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nutrilayer

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

User Mlamb1 (talk · contribs) has put in a series of articles about products of the Eastman Chemical Company. A speedy on this one was declined as a borderline case, with the suggestion of taking it to AFD "if article still appears as advertising". There are are clear COI issues - this user's only edits are to Eastman Chemical and its products - and the only references are the company's website and an external link which is a story written by "Nancy E. Kinkade Ph.D. – Eastman Chemical Company". Although the article reads like a product catalogue entry rather than a blatant advertisement, it is still promotion - out to explain the product's advantages.

I suggest that we Delete this and the four similar articles I have listed below, because they do not demonstrate notability for these products, and we should not let Wikipedia become an Eastman Chemical product catalogue. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Spectar (copolyester) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tritan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Tenite (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Texanol (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete all. I originally nomd this for speedy and was surprised it was declined. To my mind clearly spam. – ukexpat (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all as non-notable product spam. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• I agree. Delete all as non-notable and spam. Dawn bard (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:SPAM. --Sharkface217 02:59, 21 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 (nomination withdrawn). (jarbarf) (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wally Bear and the NO! Gang

Wally Bear and the NO! Gang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unlicensed NES game, probably NN. Only possible claim to notability is it's review by the Angry Video Game Nerd, but that per se may not be a valid assertion. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw, per USA Today review, should be cited in article if possible. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Slartibartfast1992 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not a licensed game, nor the subject of any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep this nomination is honestly a bit baffling to me. We have articles on other unlicensed NES games that have survived AfDs (Spiritual Warfare and other Wisdom Tree games) and this one is certainly more notable than they are. Homebrew games are one thing, but this one was actually published and sold in stores. JuJube (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This game has been discussed in well-known online sources, including Seanbaby's website (see [14]). Here's another review from a website that has been around for over 10 years and that I would generally consider a reliable source on NES-related issues. I'm sure some published sources could also be found if someone has access to video game magazines (not Nintendo Power, obviously, since they only covered licensed NES games) from the era when the game was released. *** Crotalus *** 12:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 15:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The cover for the game was also ranked fifth by in a list of top ten worst covers by Gamespy.[15] --76.66.189.163 (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't qualify as non-trivial coverage Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "non-trivial" or any permutation thereof does not appear in the verifiability policy you cite here. *** Crotalus *** 02:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Was an actual published video game... appears to be notable enough. --03:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Simply being published is not an assertion of notability. Not all published books and films qualify as notable, why are video games any different? Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This game was notable for keeping young children away from recreational drugs. Someone should be working hard on this article so that it may become a featured article someday instead of being deleted. GVnayR (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I don't understand what licensing has to do with it. Actually, I'd say that any non-homebrew NES game (i.e., was developed by a company and sold commercially) is going to be notable. This one especially has plenty of coverage; in addition to the modern retro reviews, I found a USA Today article about the game from 1991 (it's difficult, of course, to find print sources that are that old, especially in video game magazines where we'd expect to find the most material). This surely qualifies. — brighterorange (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - there is no citation for the claim that a Nancy Reagan trademark affected the naming of the game. This topic does not have more than transient interest. Racepacket (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • But notability is not temporary... — brighterorange (talk) 00:10, 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. If anyone is prepared to write an article on Etna software that uses reliable sources, then feel free to set it up in a sandbox and list it at Deletion review. Otherwise, it stays deleted. Spebi (talk) 05:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etna software

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

After extensive searching in both English and Russian languages, sources can't be found which would establish notability of this Russian company, thereby it fails WP:CORP Россавиа ^Диалог 20:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Россавиа ^Диалог 20:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Россавиа ^Диалог 20:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Unsourced article about a non-consumer software business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:COMPANY --Sharkface217 03:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. if more reliable references are added. Dwilso 03:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as this article has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability, and as a consequence, reads like an advertorial. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, vaguely promotional in tone. Wouldn't be a problem if reliable secondary sources were available which mark this company as being noteworthy or remarkable in some fashion, but I was not able to find any. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:29, 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. As noted below, vandalism will be dealt with as a wholly separate issue. (This discussion failed to mention the previous AFD in 2006 which can be found here). — CharlotteWebb 13:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GameRanger

Probably doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (web), no references, no indication of significance or importance. Polly (Parrot) 20:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The inability to keep the page accurate due to the persistant vandalism should also be noted. Simply look at the logs.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 08:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 08:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7: "web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" and block the users who keep removing the AFD tag. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete if left in its current state, with just one independent source; Keep if the sources mentioned below are added to the article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 15:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Percy Snoodle. Article has suffered from heavy vandalism and is probably unrepairable. Article also has no citations and contains potentially libellous content (probably added as part of the vandalism).--Gazimoff (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - [16] Trivial mentions at apple.com and other freeware download sites. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Changing to Keep per google news articles. Definitely establishes notability. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Plenty of sources (http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=GameRanger+mac&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&um=1) and vandalism isn't a reason to delete. Please do a web/news search before voting to delete. Remember we are looking for notability of the topic not of the article. Hobit (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I did do a search for material, however the article is being continually vandalised by Rrybellows, Demons2oo5 and Wing44 with the insertioon of libellous comments. Any attempt to correct the article is instantly reverted. WP:CSD#G3 is my argument in this case - if an article can be created on this topic, it is probably better to do it elsewhere as any effort to correct the article is highly likely to be reverted.Gazimoff (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. There are other tools such as blocking and page protection which can be used to deal with vandalism. If we delete an article because of vandalism then the vandals will have won. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The page was vandalised again by another new user. If possible, it may be worth looking at those blocks and other tools you mentioned, as the situation is getting a bit ridiculous.Gazimoff (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Per Hobit, sources. This is an established service dedicated to servicing those who plays old games on Apple machines. --Sharkface217 03:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep We've already been through this, and it passed even before the google news articles. GofG _|^|_| Talk 22:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is now demonstrated within the article, vandalism is irrelevant. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:42, 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 02:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bambu rolling papers

Bambu rolling papers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I won't go as far as calling this spam outright, otherwise I would've listed it with {{db-spam}} but this product appears to be non-notable in that it lacks anything that resembles a reliable third party source, let alone multiple sources about the product. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Here's a review in a magazine called "Roll Your Own" magazine (NB: i haven't a clue if the latter is notable/reliable, but in mitigation, i also imagine it might be reasonably harder to find sources on illegal-drug paraphernalia than on quite a lot of other subjects). Here is notice of a "lifetime achievement award" from High Times magazine, who i believe are quite the big-shots in the world of the marijuana. I also think the detail of Cheech & Chong seeing fit to appropriate the design of the Bambú packet for the cover of what is apparently their most popular album (plus giant 12"-sized paper - Rolling Stone review, Aug 17, 1972) may well indicate these things were of some substantial popularity in the '70s. This Penthouse cover story from 2000, covering Draconian drug policy, makes fleeting mention of candy stores getting busted for carrying these papers. Here's a mention in the first chapter of what seems a reasonably notable novel. Don't particularly know (not being a lawyer, etc.) what notability court cases might bring, but here is one the company fought over Big Bambu papers in the 80s. Might also be worth noting that apparently one of their competitors has been doing some stealth editing... tomasz. 23:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep The new sources looks very solid.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, and suggest that this nomination be reconsidered in light of edits. Bambu rolling papers are something of a cultural icon. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Per WP:NOTABILITY. --Sharkface217 03:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and improve referencing within the article, the subject itself meets Wikipedia standards for notability. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:42, 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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Martine Vik Magnussen case

The Martine Vik Magnussen case (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Just another murder... Fails WP:N. Biruitorul (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing to indicate anything notable, though it might pass the "Skittles" test of making an article about something that happened in the past week. Mandsford (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Currently 20800 hits on Google on "Martine Vik Magnussen". There are probably articles which don't mention the name too. It is notable in Norway, and probably the UK, (in Yemen too?) but probably not very notable worldwide. Bib (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Potential to become notable case, but many of the claims of importance don't stand up, like having been on the same dance floor as P Diddy or having gone to the same school as the Crown Prince of Norway. Uh, wow. --Dhartung | Talk 22:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. First, from Wikipedia:Notability: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.. So the article is notable, because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, even if a majority of these are Norwegian sources.

However, here's text from Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.

Since the article is about the case, The Martine Vik Magnussen case, it does not matter that the person according to wikipedia rules is not notable.

It does say that timely news subjects not suitable for wikipedia may be suitable for wikinews. But that is what we're discussing here, is this timely new suitable? It says Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. This news is beyond that IMO. I might be wrong, and I might change my vote to delete if someone explains it with some other wiki rules, or another interpretation on these wiki rules. Bib (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, put it this way: just because an article can exist, should it exist? Biruitorul (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Bib (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not the question, it already does exists. The question is: should it be deleted, and the answer is: not unless there is overwhelming evidence and consensus that it violates policy. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 19:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is a valid question! (Unfortunately we don't have "proposed articles - people just go ahead and create them, and if they're unfit, others try and delete them.) If only people reflected on that point before creating articles, we wouldn't have 2.3 million of them, of which a hefty proportion is rubbish unfit for an encyclopedia calling itself that. So again: possibly policy allows for this article (though I still contend it fails WP:N), but really, what encyclopedia contains an article on some random murder? Just because something is permissible doesn't make it right. Biruitorul (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It might be an interesting question, but for a different forum - this is a deletion debate. Personally I have many times had great use of articles that others might consider "rubbish". Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 02:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

1. No, the existence or non-existence of this article is immaterial to the advisability of its existence. An instant before User:Pauly04 created it, it was unworthy of existence, and an instant afterward, it remained so. Merely coming into being did not alter its fundamental lack of encyclopedicity. 2. I take your point: one man's trash is another man's treasure. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have some standards. That doesn't imply the "significant news coverage-->article" equation must always be true. Biruitorul (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Aftenposten is not considered tabloid press, and neither is BBC. This case is notable, and to say otherwise just shows an Anglo-Saxon centrist bias. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 19:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

1. I reject that silly accusation wholeheartedly, as I vigorously pushed for deletion here. 2. The murder happened in London, so obviously the BBC would cover it. I don't care whether the victim is British, Norwegian, Malay or Zulu - the bottom line is that this is a routine murder of an ordinary individual and the fact that the press has covered it indicates that the press is doing its job, not that her murder deserves an entry in an encyclopedia. Biruitorul (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing routine about this case at all. The international aspect and the status of the missing witness has made it a cause célèbre, like it or not. To call it a "routine murder" is like saying that Rodney King was just another reckless driver. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 02:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, Lampman, let's not exaggerate here. Was she a member of the Royal Family? Were UFOs involved? Has Norway mobilised its Navy in the North Sea? No: the victim was a regular person killed in a none-too-uncommon fashion - such things (sadly) happen every day. The only possible circumstance making it slightly out of the ordinary is that the alleged murderer's father is a billionaire. But so what? Granted, had it been Warren Buffet or Bill Gates' son, OK, but this guy has <$10 bil (he's not on our list) and made some money in the hotel and cola industries. Just because his son allegedly killed someone doesn't confer notability on the case.

Oh, and Rodney King: spare me. [17] vs. [18]. Lasting cultural impacts vs. (at this point at least) none whatsoever. Biruitorul (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And there's the bias again. There is nothing in Wikipedia guidelines that demands notability on an international level, national notability is enough. It just so happens that American notability normally equates international notability, but this guy's father is the Buffet or Gates of his country. In Norway, the case is notable in itself simply because of its uniqueness: it hardly ever happens that Norwegians get murdered abroad (never mind quite possibly by a Yemeni billionaire's son). As for Rodney King, I am in no way equating the two, I am simply trying to make the point that cases which per se may seem trivial can gain notability exactly because of the media attention they get.

But look, the current consensus on this matter is quite clear:

A criminal act is notable if it receives significant coverage in sources with national or global scope.
While the victim(s) and perpetrator(s) of such a crime are often not notable on their own, this does not preclude the notability of the criminal act itself.

and that, I believe, says it all. The delitionists here seem to be arguing how they think Wikipedia should work rather than how it does work. But as I've said before, that is a debate for a different forum, this is a deletion debate relating to a specific article. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 14:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your claims of bias are absurd. I happened to pick Buffett and Gates, but I could as easily have picked Carlos Slim or Lakshmi Mittal. The guy's father (and, by the way, notability is not inherited) isn't even in the top 100, so he can't be that significant. Sure, Yemen has a wealthiest person, but so do Haiti, Malawi and Sierra Leone - that doesn't mean they're especially rich by global standards. Of course the case is going to garner some attention in Norway: the media loves these kinds of stories. That doesn't mean (and, might I add, WP:N/CA is merely a proposed policy) every transient and, all things considered, trivial episode merits a place in an encyclopedia. If I see some lasting impact in half a year (or better yet a decade) I might revise my opinion. Biruitorul (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well you're just confirming what I suspected. You seem to imply that notability can only exist on a global level, and that notability - for entrepreneurship or other things - on a national level in Yemen, Haiti, Malawi or Sierra Leone is somehow worthless. This way you are only promoting the systemic bias that Wikipedia tries so hard to counter. Surely you can't deny that if global notability was to be the criterion for inclusion, then the article mass would be unfairly slanted towards the US? And yes, I know that WP:N/CA is only yet a proposed policy, that's why I used the word "consensus" and not "policy". At the moment, however, it's what we have, and as for your suggested policy of not creating articles on anything more recent than ten years, I fail to see what that is based on. It certainly would cancel out one of the main advantages we have over print encyclopedias. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 19:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify my comments. a) If (say) a Yemenite amasses a $50 billion fortune, by all means write an article on him. We have articles on billionaires from Nigeria, [Naguib Sawiris|Egypt]], Brazil - great. No problem with me. We have an article on the man who was once Romania's wealthiest, and on her wealthiest man today - but not so much because of their wealth (not that impressive globally) but because their other activities made them notable. I myself wrote an article on a Romanian murderer, but mostly because of his crimes' lasting cultural impact. b) I certainly don't suggest waiting a decade for everything; a few months is usually enough. Of course some things one knows right away are going to have a lasting impact and so creating an article on them immediately isn't a problem. But it's this rush to start articles on events that could well be forgotten quite soon that is disturbing and damages our reputation. Biruitorul (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with you about the damaged reputation. I don't recall any external sources complaining we cover too trivial topics, but I have seen a lot of them commending our coverage of contemporary issues. Here we have an advantage over print encyclopedias in our up-to-date coverage, but also over internet news sources in that we contribute background and context (like the beautiful map on International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence; you'd have to leaf through a quite a few newspapers to find anything that clear and comprehensive).

Ultimately this is a matter of philosophy and personal opinion. My belief is that even if the subject is trivial (which this one certainly is not, with an international incident brewing over extradition issues) the article is not so, as long as it is well written and sourced.

Anyway, these are larger issues. The only issue at hand here is: does this article violate policy? I think the obvious answer is "no". Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 02:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Again back to the philosophical can / should dichotomy - I don't think either of us will convince the other at this point, but it's been an instructive debate. Biruitorul (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The case seems to have garnered significant international attention. --Sharkface217 03:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And...? That entitles it to a place in an encyclopedia? Really, let's think about the bigger picture here, let's maintain some sort of standard higher than "it was in the news a lot, so, hey, let's have an article on it!" Biruitorul (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should that be a standard which is too low? —Nightstallion 16:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, because I like to see some sort of lasting impact, or potential of one, in an encyclopedic entry. Personal opinion, I know, but it informs my interpretation of WP:N, which is why I made the nomination. Biruitorul (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep for now, we can always delete it later on. —Nightstallion 16:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Albeit perhaps not in the limelight in the U.S., this remains a public case in the UK, Norway and Yemen, and should thus qualify in all means to a Wikipedia entry. --Lipothymia (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - I agree with others that although the article passes Wikipedia:Notability, it also fails WP:NOT. So here's why I think it presently it should be kept - because if we delete it, it will only presently be added back by another Anon. Secondly, the longer term issues of extradition between the UK and Yemen, let alone the diplomatic pressure Norway will bring to bear, would easily push this past a News point to an issue of excellent encyclopaedic note. In example, I'd say look at the Alexander Litvinenko article - initially news of one person dying, now an ongoing diplomatic issue clearly worthy of encyclopaedic inclusion. Let the Anon's edit and add as the news piece ebbs and flows, and review in a months time once its significance (in light of the police report) has been established or not. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - one of the main advantages to Wikipedia is that we are broad in our coverage. This is a well written article that complies with all Wikipedia policies. We need to welcome more like it. Johntex\^talk 17:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If "it's policy-compliant" is your standard for article retention, fine. (To which I ask, again: just because an article can exist, should it exist?) But if we keep, and it looks we will, might we find a better title? The "the" is sub-standard, for instance. Biruitorul (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree the title should change, definitely. As to your other question, my answer would be Yes. If an article complies with policy then it should be allowed to exist. If someone takes the time to write a reasonably well-written, reasonably well-referenced, policy compliant article, then we should keep it - plain and simple. We need more articles like that, not fewer. Johntex\^talk 21:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A shooting spree that killed 1? A 3-hour blackout? (I hear Iraq's had quite a few of those in the last 5 years.) A dozen non-fatal cases of measles? (As opposed to the 70 who died of measles in Afghanistan in 2000.) 4 dead in small planes? (Cessnas crash all the time.) Skittles? Turbulence? This murder? If that's what you want from an encyclopedia, well, I guess you're in the majority. But if any of this had happened outside the English-speaking developed world, or before ~2004, you can bet they wouldn't have articles. Now I know your answer will probably be "let's create articles on those other episodes rather than deleting these", but it's unfortunate people don't consider the probable lasting impact of a current event before dignifying it with an article purely because the press has covered it (which, I will remind you, is, after all, the press's job - to cover big news stories, whether or not they'll matter beyond next week). Biruitorul (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You are exactly right that my reply is to go improve the coverage of other parts of the world if they are lagging behind coverage of events in America. If all the effort that went into trying to delete well-referenced articles went into creating more good articles we would be far better off. It would be a wonderful thing if Wikipedia had existed in 1900 and we had 100 or 1000 murder articles from period of 1900-1910 so that readers could compare those articles to the crimes of 2000-2010.

The mistake you make is assuming that we have not considered the consequences. The consequences of such articles would be that people have a resource that provides a more complete understanding of the world we live in. So, perhaps you should heed your own advice and give some consideration to the lasting impact of that?

If people want to write policy-compliant, well-referenced articles on recent events then we should applaud their efforts, not discourage them. The Skittles article you dislike so thoroughly is 3x better referenced than Elephant shrew or Aardvark. Maybe the Aardvark and elephant shrew articles are important animals, but the Skittles incident and its themes of nutrition, school discipline, and zero tolerance enforcement are of interest to a number of Wikipedia readers. As is this article on the Martine Vik Magnussen case. There is no reason to deny them the ability to learn about these topics. Johntex\^talk 03:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a question of priorities. If people prefer devoting energy to video-game reratings or some football team (OK, just kidding there) rather than important buildings or composers, then we can't stop them (or I should say those of us who would like to can't).

I honestly didn't know you were the Skittles author, but my position remains the same: it's a nice "offbeat news" sort of story, but I'd prefer if we didn't head down that slippery slope (seems we're doing so, though). Of course it's well-referenced: you're a competent editor and know how to source articles properly. That doesn't mean (in my view) that the animals you mentioned shouldn't receive more attention, because in a years' time, aardvarks will still matter but the Skittles incident will be long forgotten.

To address your question on impact: I think with some events, the impact is obvious right away and it's good to have an article at once. (Examples might include the Indian Ocean tsunami or Kosovo declaring independence.) With other things, though (this article being a good example), I don't think it would kill people to wait six or even three months to see if indeed there's something more than transitory about a subject before enshrining it here. And yes, I do consider the impact of the articles I create and those I seek to delete - I see an encyclopedia as a general resource on subjects of scholarly interest, not as a repository for everything. Granted, we here have a much wider scope than print encyclopedias, and I'm genuinely grateful for that, but just how wide that scope should be remains a matter of contention. Biruitorul (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that the Aardvark is an important animal and our article on the Aardvark deserves to be improved; my mention of it is designed partly to point out that we have much work to do in lots of places. But also partly to show what you have just said - people will write about what they want to write about. That is not perfect, but it is a pretty good system, given that we have only volunteers to rely on. Besides, our readers and our authors are overlapping populations. We have to imagine that the things our writers want to write about will also largely relate to what our readers want to read about.

I am glad you mention this 2007 football team I helped write about. 100 years from now will not be considered of the all-time greats of the sport, or even of the school. The school boasts 1, 2, 3 national championship teams that we have not written about. Why? Partly because people care about recent history. Partly because it is easier to write about things while references are fresh and available. Partly just because it is interesting. If no one beats me to it I may write those other articles someday as well.

I also did a lot of work on October 2007 California wildfires. We wrote the bulk of that article in October/November when the events were fresh and I am glad we did so. Again, sourcing is easier at the time of the events. Does it need a copyedit now that a few months have passed? Absolutely, but the article is still better for being primarily written when the events were occurring and people cared deeply about the topic.

Current event articles on Wikipedia are a very good thing. The idea that they will evolve over time as our perspectives change is also a good thing. But lets not delete them - let's let them mature and evolve alongwith our perspectives. Johntex\^talk 05:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see, right? Who knows where we'll be in a decade's time - maybe we'll have collapsed under our own weight, or maybe the 2006,7,8 current-events articles will indeed be appreciated then. I look forward to finding out. Biruitorul (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fair. I can't claim to know the future so I could be wrong about whether people will appreciate these articles. I am pretty confident though, that if the articles ever pose a true risk of us collapsing under our weight, that we can always delete or split off articles at that time. Thanks for your open dialog about this question. Johntex\^talk 17:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure, and may the deletionist-inclusionist war remain civil! Biruitorul (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"Murder of..." seems to be quite standard, see Category:2007 crimes or Category:2005 crimes. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 22:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep (If I may chip in as an occasional contributor, that is) I can only compare this to "just another crime" that has turned into a substantial wikipedia entry, namely the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The London murder may not have received the same coverage yet, but as others have pointed out, there is a diplomatic dimension that makes it more than just another murder. The latest in this regard is that Yemen might refuse to cooperate in order to avenge itself for Britain's refusal to extradite Abu Hamza al-Masri, the hook-handed cleric.[19] My feeling is that this will not go away soon. If it does, the article can always be removed. (toufoul) 21:14, 25 March 2008 (GMT)

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nikki Flores

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

Non-notable singer. Signed to Sony at a young age, released 2 singles that failed to chart, and her planned album was shelved. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep if she is in fact signed to Sony Music I think that alone meets criteria for inclusion. I suspect this article just needs some improvement, which should happen naturally over time. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Being signed to a major label isn't one of the criteria; it's releasing two albums on a major label—she hasn't even released one. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete with no prejudice against recreation once she charts (if she does). She hasn't put out an album or singles yet, so she seems to fail WP:MUSIC right now. Given that she is with a major label (anyone know which division of Sony?), she probably could meet some criterion in the future, just not right now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Exactly. If someone can locate reliable sources of these two singles then I think this is a fairly solid case for inclusion if they were released under the Sony label. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Appears to be Epic Records.SonyBMG site using AllMusic data I've found a 404'd article in The Age that suggests, as of last August, her album This Girl still hadn't been released. --Dhartung | Talk 20:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence that she meets WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. BRMo (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Upon further consideration, if this artist is signed but has yet to actually release anything, and no valuable third party publications are available, we may as well remove this for now (without prejudice) until such sources do become available. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Appears to be a notable actress. --Sharkface217 03:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There's only one role listed on IMDb, which doesn't meet Wikipedia:BIO#Entertainers.

• An actor can be notable for only one role. This person has done more than act in that MTV film anyway.--Oakshade (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia:BIO#Entertainers says different: "Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice until better sources are published about the subject. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Signed with a major label like Sony does make this person notable in addition to having a principal role in a MTV film. --Oakshade (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:MUSIC does not include being signed to a major label as a criterion for notability. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, would not appear to be notable either as a musician or an actor. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:31, 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 all. Singularity 00:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Cars

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

German Cars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

List of Japanese Cars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I am at a loss to know where to start on this article that begins with telling us where 'Britian' is! It then goes onto mention two seemingly arbitrarily chosen motor manufacturers, states that the headquarters of Daihatsu is in Britian when its in Japan and then goes into a complete nonsense passage about 'Britian plates'. Paste (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete both as redundant info to existing articles. I added German Cars, another similar nonsensical page by the same user. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Good idea, bad article..page need a complete refurb. --Camaeron (t/c) 20:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• So THAT's where Britain is located. I was figuring somwhere north of Canada. And it's home to over five automobile manufacturers. But is it home to over six automobile manufacturers? I'm pretty sure this article has been done elsewhere, and it can be redirected to there. Mandsford (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all three, I just added List of Japanese Cars, which is very similar to the other two. All they seem to do is take the first few lines from each of the manufacturers in the country and duplicate the info in the respective article. With a description of where the country is and license plates from the country. Jons63 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all three, per nom and subsequent delete comments. – ukexpat (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete the British Article, as it is to plain and mundane for the brain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.51.45 (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all - I don't know what the passage "Britian plates" is talking about about - not British license plates, anyway. JohnCD (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not about British plates, it is the paragraph from the List of Japanese Cars article. Jons63 (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That says it all about the standard of fact-checking/editing here! JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete all, mish-mash messes. We have articles like Japanese automobile industry already. --Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I think i can see what the author is trying to get at but these articles (especially German Cars) are stylistically and factually greviously all over the shop. I am doubtful if they could ever clean up re WP:HEY as any resultant sourced info would still amount to nothing more than a repetition of parts of existing articles as they pertain to a subjective view of the Japanese market.Plutonium27 (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment See also British cars by the same editor (and British motor industry, which isn't) --Dweller (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all per most everything above. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete All or Merge All of this could probably be stuck under automobile. --Sharkface217 03:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, although the tables of production - probably the only salvageable elements - could be folded into the relevant

automotive industry by country article. Gr1st (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete All Thais article has no use because the wikipages of british car makes cover this. Iwilleditu^{Hi :)} 00:03, 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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alec Michod

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

Gets several google hits, but was written by a user named Amichod. Take a look at his userpage. Coincidence? FusionMix 20:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing on the user page which says that a similar user cannot author an article; since this is not spam or advertising but encyclopedia-worth fact, it should be included, if in an edited version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amichod (talk • contribs) 20:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Please read our conflict of interest policy to determine how you should proceed in future. While it is not strictly forbidden, it is always a problem when you edit your own article. (As your user page names you as the subject, I feel free to make this association.) --Dhartung | Talk 22:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - While author may have a COI, seems notable. There is secondary source coverage of his work by the Village Voice here, by the Chicago Sun-Times here, and another here. He also writes book reviews for the New York Times. See here and here. KnightLago (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per KnightLago. It appears that WP:NOTABILITY can be established. --Sharkface217 03:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, borderline, but there appears to be sufficient coverage to establish notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC).
• Delete - Fails WP:BIO notability guideline, that article has no secondary independent sources. It's basically making an advertisement about the author. Alec Michod is not "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:45, 27 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. Most of the delete opinions amount to the list being redundant, not useful and possibly misleading. They are offset by arguments to keep the content and its edit history under some title, at least in the form of a useful navigational aid, index or disambiguation type page. In any case the incoming redirects should be checked and possibly replaced by more specific ones. Tikiwont (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of monarchs in the British Isles

List of monarchs in the British Isles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article doesn't cover any material that isnt already covered on List of British monarchs, List of English monarchs and List of Scottish monarchs. It is also entirely unreferenced and confusing, ultimates completely redundant. --Camaeron (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Camaeron (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Note to Administrator who closes this AfD: A wikipedian notified other wikipedians of the same opion as him/her-self and thus the concept of 
popular consensus has been breached. I have taken the liberty of "marking" the individuals with a small comment underneath their votes.
 --Camaeron (t/c) 18:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Camaeron, I can understand if you feel under attack over this issue. But, to be clear, what happened was that a longstanding and well-respected Wikipedian informed everyone who had contributed to the last AfD, and put a note, right here on this AfD, to say that he had done so. I have turned it red below, for greater visibility. (Also, for the sake of openness, I'll mention that I was informed, too, and you missed me.)

Having said that, I'm not very clear why those engaged in this discussion have become so vociferous about it. I've explained at (...what felt like great...) length below how Camaeron and TharkunColl can achieve the result they are asking for. If my posting wasn't understood, then please feel free to discuss at my talk page. Best, AndyJones (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC).

I dont feel the slightest bit "under attack", as you put it. It was just rather odd that all of a sudden lots of "support" votes turned up out of no where. Especially as they came from people who themselves arent willing to maintain the page and havent been seen on the pages for ages! Myself and TharkunColl both fully understand what AfD's are for and are fully capable of deciding whether we think the article needs to be deleted or not...--Camaeron (t/c) 21:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry: I'm interpreting your apparent defensiveness as a sign that you feel under attack and I apologise if I'm misinterpreting you. With respect, and this is NOT a personal attack, I think you do have at least one lesson to learn about what AfD is for and what it is not for, and it's this: MERGES ARE SIMPLER AND BETTER. That's because:

• Any editor can do them: no Admin required.
• There's never a GFDL problem.
• There is no need to start a discussion, and wait five days - repeatedly defending your position along the way.
• There's no need to involve outside editors: whose opinions you clearly don't respect anyway because they work on other pages.

In short, you just go ahead and do them. That's what you can and should have done in this case. So however this AfD closes, please at least take that lesson away with you. AndyJones (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm just a defensive person. My comments do sometimes come accross more agressive than intended. The reason I put this up for discussion is..I dont believe this page should exist under any circumstances. Not even as a redirect. I am fully aware that I could have merged it at any time. In fact I initially put a merge Template on the page and stated a discussion but then I changed my mind: After all there arent any other monarchy pages, going by geography (see List of monarchs of Europe, List of monarchs of Asia, List of monarchs of America...--Camaeron (t/c) 10:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator...--Camaeron (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - As long as the above mentioned articles remain seperate? GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• I can see where it might be a navigational aid, but I agree that this stuff has been covered elsewhere. Mandsford (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• As was noted at the previous AfD, and again today, the article can serve a purpose. If articles can be fixed, they should not be nominated at AfD: deletion is the last resort. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - redundant list serving no purpose other than to repeat content that is already elsewhere. – ukexpat (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete after merging anything that isn't already in the three other articles. Agreed this is redundant and is better served as separate articles. 23skidoo (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete- Material is covered adequately in other lists.--Gazzster (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - while stricly this article is not necessary, I can see more reason for this list than some others which look like being kept. It can be helpful to have an overview of the historical relationships between the various monarchies in that part of the world, leaving the more detailed lists separate. It is like an index for the other lists, and could be made even better. JPD (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - and redirect to List of British monarchs. Links on that page will direct to England, Scotland, etc. TharkunColl (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect per TharkunColl. There's no need for this fork. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - As in the last Afd. The article needs a make-over but it could actually be useful if worked on. A redirect as suggested wouldn't be appropriate as British Isles ≠ Britain. Bill Reid | Talk 10:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. At this point I notified everyone who took part in the first AfD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Sign, then drive. I mean, Merge, then delete. Bearian (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: If I were an admin I would close this per WP:SNOW...--Camaeron (t/c) 12:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment: "Merge then delete" isn't an option: it would amount to a GFDL violation. If you merge, the source page has to be kept in order to preserve its edit history. There are work-arounds (such as a protected redirect or a move out of article space). However in a normal case like this one a regular merge is fine. That would leave this article as a redirect to one of the others. AndyJones (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'm a bit amazed to see anyone trying to invoke WP:SNOW on a good-looking article that's previously survived an AfD and already has several keep votes and favourable comments. Be that as it may, I'd support a keep or a merge to the other three articles. Has anyone from the relevant project, or anyone who has worked on this page, come along to comment, yet? I'd like someone who knows the topic better than me to comment on whether all the potentially useful information here has already been merged into the other lists. AndyJones (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: By several keep votes you mean just the one do you? I dont know how this page survived its first Afd! Nobody (yet) has given a proper answer as to why it should be kept in its current form! I have edited English, Scottish, and British Monarchs articles and even created the article about the Irish ones. However I have never edited the article that is nominated for deletion as info that could be added there is already at the other previously mentioned pages...--Camaeron (t/c) 13:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Was counting Angus as a Keep, FWIW. AndyJones (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• List of Irish monarchs is largely a duplicate of List of English monarchs (a cut and paste to the point of listing two English rulers who were apparently never Lord of Ireland) and List of Lords of Ireland and List of British monarchs. Were I to act as you did, I'd have nominated it for deletion, beginning with the phrase "This article doesn't cover any material that isnt already covered on ...". Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 14:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - can be improved, but don't throw baby out with bathwater. Deb (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: this user was notified about the Rfa --Camaeron (t/c) 18:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I understand the reasons for deletion, but I think the list of all monarchs should be kept. PeterSymonds | talk 19:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Deb and the baby's bathwater. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as a disambiguation page only. This has not got any better since the last AfD. I think it has a useful purpose but only as a disambiguation page to all the other articles on monarchs in the British Isles as suggested on the talk page as indicated above by Angus McLellan. --Bduke (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: this user was notified about the Rfa --Camaeron (t/c) 18:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. This is a different list to the List of British monarchs which only covers monarchs since the passage of the Act of Union in 1707. It might be worthwhile to merge the lists but that can be done after discussion on talk pages than here. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: this user was notified about the Rfa --Camaeron (t/c) 18:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The list itself is fine. Only the text before the list requires some attention and clean-up. There is no need to delete this article--it just needs a handful of dedicated editors. Caponer (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: this user was notified about the Rfa --Camaeron (t/c) 18:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Has great potential. --Sharkface217 03:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment What's the betting that a bunch of people who have never worked on these articles will tip the initial overwhelming consensus to delete in favour of keep - so long as radical work is done on it - and then somehow that radical work never actually gets done? TharkunColl (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, the problem here is that we're having this discussion in the wrong forum. AfD exists to deal with articles which somehow abuse the encyclopedia, and it exists for establishing, by discussion, where the boundaries are of what material Wikipedia covers. If you put up an article like this one which is squarely within the boundaries of "encyclopedic", which is comparatively mature, well-thought-out, superficially accurate and enlightening, and with a long history of edits dating back to June 2002, it is hardly surprising that most drive-by editors will see this as a very, very obvious no-brainer keep. Whatever the shortcomings of this article (light sourcing seems to be its main one) I can quite literally show you a million which are worse, just by teaching you how to use the Random Article button. (Also, FWIW, I don't thing any of the keep voters above have voted conditional keep - wikipedia is a work in progress, after all.) What actually happened here seems to be that a small group of editors who work on British history stuff had a brief discussion (which can be seen here). It produced a local consensus that the article was less useful than the other three articles and should perhaps be merged there. Then here's where it went wrong. You could all have taken Camaeron's point seriously: "All the information here could be merged (if it hasnt already been) to the respective pages", which would have led to a considered process of checking the articles against each other over the course of a few days, moving any valuable information to the merge targets, fact-checking them and adding their sources along the way. Then, a discussion would have proceeded on whether the existing page should become a DAB or a redirect, that discussion would have reached a consensus too, and it would have been fixed. The whole thing could have happened fairly quietly and be done by a few hard-working editors with an enthusiasm for the subject. The question of a possible GFDL violation wouldn't arise because no deletion would have occurred. Unfortunately, that's not what happened. Instead, out of misplaced enthusiasm, the matter got brought here to AfD, where - unsurprisingly - the case you considered so overwhelming for deletion didn't strike the community the same way. The AfD opened on the same day as the discussion, and when other options were only beginning to be considered at the atricle's talk page. Of course this is now going to close as no-consensus: where else can it go? The good news, however, is that once this has closed, all the editorial options that were open to the page's editors before this discussion still are: and clearly an editorial solution to the problem will get found. AndyJones (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

We come to this stage very often because many editors are just too uninterested in putting the research in to improve articles. We are often very keen on voting 'keep' as long as someone else does the work. And of course the article continues in its dilapidated state because we continue to ignore its flaws. For myself I favour deletion because this particular article replicates list than can be found on their own in other places and where a reader is more likely to search. As a stand alone I will admit it is an interesting overview but I don't know that it justifies itself because of that. We might also note that because these sorts of lists attract a lot of discussion, the talk page for this list will be largely a replication of talk pages on the lists for the separate British monarchs. But I do not like deletion without an interesting fight! And so far all we have heard is basically : 'keep, refer to last Afd'. Come on guys!--Gazzster (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Gazzster. --Camaeron (t/c) 12:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually think that this article undermines Wikipedia quite badly. Because it's quite old, it has a very large number of links to it from other pages, but someone following such a link looking for a simple, straightforward and infomative list will be sorely disappointed. After wading through loads of introductary and largely irrelevant verbiage, he finally comes to a list that hasn't been updated in any meaningful sense in years, because its eccentric formatting prevents anything but minor changes. A redirect to List of British monarchs would solve all this, because not only is it clear and straightforward, but it also has dablinks at the top to the relevant English and Scottish lists. It also presents portraits and biographical details, something else impossible on this one. And finally, the title of this one is just plain absurd. TharkunColl (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Why do you think the title's absurd, mate?--Gazzster (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not a "list of monarchs in the British isles". It only includes the kingdoms of England and Scotland (and Ireland only where identical to England). No other monarchs of any other historical kingdoms are listed. Indeed, this would be impossible - hence the absurdity of the title. TharkunColl (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Gotcha. Yeah, it should include a list of Lords of the Isles, Kings of Mann, Grand Poobahs of Warzoan-on-Bogg, etc.--Gazzster (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It was not intended to be a "list of monarchs in the British isles". Its original title was "List of British monarchs". So it only includes monarchs of mainland Britain. It should never have been moved to its current misleading title. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge per my various comments above. AndyJones (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per Gazzster - the title is absurd. Very unencyclopedic. The British Isles is a geographical term, while monarchies are political. Let's not mix the two, or it will only add to the confusion. Bardcom (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Bardcom. Ireland, Scotland and England, and following the Acts of Union, the United Kingdom, have had monarchs. A group of islands doesn't. The existing articles listed by the nominator cover the subjects perfectly well. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• delete per nom, or merge if no-one disagrees, otherwise list at "controversial merges" page. special, random, Merkinsmum 18:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• delete as for norm.--Padraig (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Any administrator closing this would do well to look at the article histories with the order in which they were created firmly in mind, so that it is clear which is a fork of which.

• List of monarchs in the British Isles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- created 2002-06-20 (or earlier?)
• List of English monarchs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- created 2002-12-23
• List of Scottish monarchs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- created 2004-10-08
• List of British monarchs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- created 2007-09-20
• List of Irish monarchs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- created 2008-03-19

• Interesting, no? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The List of monarchs in the British Isles page may have the same data that other pages already contain but it is a different packaging of that data, therefore it should remain with some minor editing to be undertaken. I concur with the editor above who referred to this AfD nomination as "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." Let's allow it to remain and make it a featured list in the process. --Jhohenzollern (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment A closing admin should also take note that the primary argument for keeping the article British Isles is the fact that it is upheld as a geographic article, and that the term British does not denote ownership (contested). It is stressed that British Isles is not a political term. If this article remains as is, it will lend a lot of weight to the opinion that the article British Isles should be radically overhauled to reflect the fact that the term, while intended to be geographical, is in fact political, and therefore factually incorrect. Bardcom (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The article should be judged on its content and usefulness (existing or potential). To recommend the deletion of an article on the basis of its name would be wrong. This article name could be re-directed to some other name, say List of monarchs of Britain and Ireland. Bill Reid | Talk 16:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Which would be pretty ridiculous - why not have an article about two other random countries also, say List of monarchs in Belgium and Sweden? Britain and Ireland are seperate countries - the point is that mixing geography and politics is not a good idea, especially when there are already articles in place with the appropriate content. You ask that the article should be judged on it's content and usefulness. That is also my point - why duplicate content using a contentious term? No content will be lost. Bardcom (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Do Belgium and Sweden together form a distinct geographical and cultural region with a long shared history? Have they had the same monarch for over 800 years? No. Remember that this lists all previous states as well as current ones. TharkunColl (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment "Britain" isn't a country; it's an island. There has never (outside mythology) been a country called "Britain"; perhaps you're thinking of the United Kingdom (etc.)? As for mixing geography and politics, what's your opinion on articles such as Geography of Sweden? EdC (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment The title List of monarchs in the British Isles was not the original title of the article, and was apparently chosen in a misguided attempt to be all-inclusive. It has gone through many, many changes of title - another sure indication of its cobbled together nature. I would first favour deletion. If that doesn't happen, I would favour redirect to List of British monarchs. If not that, how about turning it into a simple disambiguation page, like this User:TharkunColl/Sandbox (it's probably not complete, by the way, as I'm sure there are some lists I haven't found yet). TharkunColl (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Your sandbox suggestion isn't a bad idea and does what Angus Maclellan said above. I could go with that. Bill Reid | Talk 17:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I oppose merging this article with List of British monarchs. Why? The English monarchs & Scottish monarchs correctly end in 1707. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So do I! I was talking about his sandbox suggestion (without the British Isles bit which will never grow wings, but perhaps with Britain and Ireland as a substitute) nothing more. Read what I said. Bill Reid | Talk 19:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Bill. I was responding to Tharky's idea; I know you oppose merging. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete . "List of Monarchs of the British Islands" would be an acceptable alternative since the British Islands have a status in law. --Red King (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment That would be wholly wrong, because it also contains references to historical states, including the Irish ones. TharkunColl (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Question: I don't understand: Red King are you advocating deletion of the article because its name is wrong? AndyJones (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    • ResponseYes, the current title is erroneous and therefore destroys the basis of the article. It's a "when did you stop beating your wife" title - the basic premise is false so everything that follows from it is unfounded. [I withdraw my suggested compromise - as TkC observes, "British Islands" is a modern term so can't be used retroactively. --Red King (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - The term B Isles did not exist for most of the period covered here. This is WP:Synthesis. As per Arbcom rulings. Sarah777 (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • What? Sorry, I don't understand this vote at all. Have ArbCom ruled that the British Isles doesn't exist? If so ArbCom needs to get a grip ;-) Can you explain your point a bit more clearly? AndyJones (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Arbcom have ruled that using terms to refer to events that were not used at the time of those events is WP:Synthesis. The term "British Isles" was not in use before 1700 or some such date. Therefore to refer to events in, say 1600, as having occured in the "British Isles" is, per Arbcom, WP:Synthesis. Sarah777 (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
      • OK, assuming you have reported that correctly, and even though it's not remotely relevant to this discussion I'm going to say this anyway. ArbCom's view is bunk. No-one used the term Paleolithic in the Paleolithic era, yet we have an article on that. History of North America does not start at the date when the term North America was coined, and it would be stupid if it did. The number of articles I could cite that would be rendered ridiculous by this bizarre ruling is huge. AndyJones (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry. Arbcom may be bunk but it's the Law around here. Applying terms that were not in use in times past to events in times past is WP:Synthesis. Sarah777 (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
          • No, it isn't. If a rule is that stupid, we ignore it. WP:IAR is policy: it's above ArbCom ;-) AndyJones (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Hmmm. Sadly an Arbcom ruling is even more above the law than that. You may ignore all rules, but not all Arbcom rulings. Sarah777 (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Sarah's characterisation of the situation is bunk, I'm afraid. North America contains a history of the area from long before it was ever called that. TharkunColl (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
                • • Not too hot at analogies are you? In 1600 things happened in North America but not in the United States. Either way, the Arbcom ruling renders this discussion redundant. Sarah777 (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
                • Yes, clearly the rule as it's been presented here would be absurd to the point of being inconsistent with writing an encyclopedia, which is the core aim of this project, and it therefore could, should and would be ignored. However, is there any meat to this point? Does anyone know which case we are talking about, and can link to what ArbCom actually said? I have trouble accepting that their ruling actually covered my reductio ad absurdum examples above, but it might be helpful to know whether it might impact on this AfD. AndyJones (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
                  • Comment Sarah777's spurious argument relates to an Arbcom ruling on the Great Irish Famine article, where she had been attempting to insert PoV claims of genocide by the British against the Irish. Ruling here. This obviously has no application to this case. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
                    • • Sorry guys; nothing "spurious" about consistency. Arbcom ruled on the nature of WP:Synthesis. This is clearly exactly what they were talking about. Events pre-1700 cannot be referred to as having occured in the "British" Isles. Period. Sarah777 (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment If this article is deleted, we would then have to create a new one with the same name simply as a redirect to List of British monarchs, because there are lots of links to it [20]. Still, that's easy enough. Either that or just make it a redirect without deleting. Either is fine. TharkunColl (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The title does not match the content, as Tharky has said before. If the article is to be redeemed, lists of monarchs of all the states that have existed in the British Isles would need to be added. Unless anyone is going to put up their hand to do that (which I doubt, since it has survived an Afd unchanged) it should be deleted. At present it repeats lists at other articles. So far no-one has explained why this repetition is useful. I can understand there may be some ownership issues here, but seriously, we need to slash and burn, slash and burn. I wouoldn't even have a redirect here.--Gazzster (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with the above comment that the title simply does not match the content. Aatomic1 (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I gave my !vote above, but I am really puzzled why the suggestion, that I supported above, for making this a disambiguation page has not been supported. We even now have an example of how it might look here, although I think putting the Isle of Man under Scotland is not correct. This suggestion has received some small support but nobody has said what is wrong with it. This article was the oldest of now many articles. It has effectively outgrown itself and should be just a disambiguation page. --Bduke (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont know why others haven't supported it. But for myself, I see that the article doesn't do what it purports to. So even as a disambiguation page it is pretty useless, I'm afraid.--Gazzster (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Why, there are lost of different lists for monarchies in the British Isles. A general disambiguation page may be useful and does no harm. Why delete a long history when it can be left with the disambiguation page. Deletion get rid of a lot of contributions with no record, when they could be preserved. --Bduke (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The title of the article may need to be refactored but I believe the list holds encyclopedic value. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please explain that last point.--Gazzster (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems perfectly clear to me. Bill Reid | Talk 07:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Question Hi jarbarf, have you any suggestions for the title? If you keep the article, are you also suggesting that information is duplicated between this article and the other individual articles? Bardcom (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as is and clean up. -- Secisek (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Question for all those who are voting "keep and clean up". Will you be doing the cleaning up? Because that's exactly what people voted for last time, and yet nothing happened. I seriously doubt that any of the editors who regularly work on British monarchy lists will want to or be able to do it, because the formatting doesn't allow any substantive change without messing up the entire list. So even if we got rid of all that useless pedantry at the beginning, the basic list would remain unchanged in its current untidy and confusing state, complete with the same POV and OR it has been burdened with ever since someone had the bright idea of nicking it from the French Wikipedia in the first place. TharkunColl (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and fix any content problems. Article is useful for a huge range of purposes. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to fix them? TharkunColl (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I can try to. I would envisage a large dab-type list page. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean, just like the one I suggested above and created here User:TharkunColl/Sandbox (though it's probably not complete yet)? TharkunColl (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, something like that, though I personally would prefer something more chronologically orientated. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

As probably everyone has noticed, Angus's idea was nicked by TC. -Bill Reid | Talk 18:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep, though possibly rename. I appreciate that a lot of hard work has gone into this list, and had expected to say "nonethless delete" ... but I have chnaged my mind after studying this and the other lists. There are two things I like about this list: a) the dab list of monarchies at the top, and b) the side-by-side timeline of the two monarchies before 1603, which so far as I am aware does not exist anywhere else on wikipedia. That parallel list is nicely presented and I found it surprisingly interesting, and it clearly serves an encyclopedic purpose.
  However, the content doesn't reflect the name: the list-of-other-monarchies at the top describes the size of the gap, and the main problem of this list is the gap between content and name. I suggest a discussion on the list's talk page to try to find a more appropriate name .. but even if an alternative name cannot be agreed, I would not want the list deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• • It will of course have to be speedily deleted after this Afd (or earlier if this isn't resolved in 16 hours) as it is in breach of an Arbcom ruling. Regardless of what transpires on this page - unless the name is changed. Sarah777 (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Which of the speedy criteria would that be under? Just so we are clear? --Bduke (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The article in toto is in breach of an Arbcom ruling. This is a WP:SNOW job, in all honesty. Not a single counter-argument yet after 9 hours. Sarah777 (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, as you know, I am only a humble urban peasant, a refugee from a Viking city pillaged by tower-cranes, so I'm a bit slow on the uptake. To help me out, please can you provide a precise link to the arbcom ruling in question, so that I can read the ruling for myself? I hope that if I see what arbcom said, I might understand more clearly how the ruling has such far-reaching effect. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarah has gone to rest her weary head, I assume. However, perhaps I can help. The remedy Sarah is referring to is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Sarah777 engaged in original research. The inference being that because the description as the famine as a "genocide" was dismissed as WP:SYN during the RfAR, thus anything that uses retrospective descriptive language must be an example of WP:SYN and not permitted according to that ArbCom ruling. Since the "British Isles" was not so described during the period that some of the listed monarchs were ruling, in Sarah's opinion it falls under that ruling. QED. My personal suggestion is that, before anyone attempts to use this as a precedent, they bring it up at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Clarifications and other requests to ensure they are interpreting the remedy correctly. Rockpocket 04:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: per Deacon and BrownHairedGirl. --Jza84 |  Talk  03:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Bhg, Angus McC and others. However the article should include links near the top to the more detailed British/Scottish/Irish lists, which I don't think it does at present. Ideally the side by side timeline will be extended backwards. It is odd the nominator does not see how much the Irish monarch list he has created would benefit from similar treatment. Johnbod (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC) (brought here by seeing a comment by Sarah777, before you ask)
• Keep - having come fresh to this debate a short time ago, and going simply by [WP:N] and common sense - it should stay. Useful to present this information in this format. Caveat about references noted, and I appreciate that it is tedious to put them in, however they should be given. Springnuts (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep/Rename Following the example of BrownHairedGirl, I've reexamined the article and I also see value in the side-by-side table comparing timelines of Scottish and English monarchs over time. Some refactoring may be needed on the article as a whole. I've started another discussion on Title renaming. Bardcom (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Other discussion now started on the articles talk page. Bardcom (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and make into a disambiguation page; either something like TharkunColl's version or, as the Deacon suggested, a chronological version. (Which approach to use can be left to the article talk page.) I think the primary value is as a disambiguation page to point the reader to the other lists; there would be too much duplication if the actual content of the lists mentioned were to be repeated here. The value of having a "British Isles" version of the list is because historical kingdoms spanned several of these boundaries. I don't see a synthesis problem with the name because it is natural for an article about the history of a geographic entity such as the British Isles to use the most common current form of the name. (It might be different if the article only covered a historical period in which the term "British Isles" was not in use.) Mike Christie (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep with appropriate changes to reduce duplication while preserving the value of a comparative timeline. There's nothing wrong with having a political article with a geographical scope that today doesn't constitute a political unit; to argue otherwise is presentism. Anyway, all history is geography, especially that of the region under consideration. EdC (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC) (note: I was notified, but was watching the page already, as my edit history will bear out.)

• Keep in order to prevent violation of the GFDL: this is the original Wikipedia article on rulers of different parts of Britain. If it were to be deleted then we would lose the history of material which has since been duplicated in more recent articles such as List of British monarchs, List of English monarchs and List of Scottish monarchs. We are obligated to keep that history under the GFDL. The original title of this article was List of British monarchs. It should be moved back to that title and non-duplicate information from the more recent article "List of British monarchs" should be merged back into it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Henry II, James V, Charles II (for example), were not British monarchs. Up until 1707, it was Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Was Charles a European monarch? Yes, he was because the Kingdom of England was situated in Europe. Was Charles a Scandinavian monarch? No, he wasn't because neither the Kingdom of England nor the Kingdom of Scotland was situated in Scandinavia. Was Charles a British monarch ? Yes, he was because the Kingdom of England was situated on the island of Britain. In fact the Kingdom of Scotland was also situated on the island of Britain, so he was the monarch of two British countries. Thus there are two good reasons why he should appear on a list of British monarchs. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Shall we take every monarch that ever lived & put them in an article called List of Earth monarchs? Charles was never King of Europe (no such position) nor King of Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to produce such a list, feel free. After all we have a list of all the countries on Earth, which is not that different in concept. However I probably won't be contributing to it, so I'll leave it to you. I am glad that you understand that Charles was never King of Great Britain. I hope that means that you understand that "European king" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "King of Europe"; that "British king" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "King of Great Britain"; and even that "American president" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "President of the Americas". -- Derek Ross | Talk

My point is, we've already got an article called List of British monarchs, which correctly omits Monarchs of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it is a very fine list of "Monarchs of the United Kingdom". Perhaps it should be renamed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I had (a half-hour earlier) proposed changing it to List of Monarchs of Great Britain and the United Kingdom, but then I pulled-back. Why? cause we would then need to propose those other articles be changed to List of Monarchs of England, List of Monarchs of Scotland, List of Monarchs of Ireland & List of Monarchs of Wales, which the article List of Scottish monarchs have & would again reject. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is that historians never use the phrase "United Kingdom" to refer to Great Britain 1707-1801 - even though the people at the time did, including the Acts of Union. TharkunColl (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy move

I have archived this section for the following reasons. Speedy moving a page on the basis an interpretation of ArbCom comments regarding a completely different subject is generally inadvisable. Doing so during an active and robust AfD discussion is not going to fly. The closing admin will, I'm sure, take this proposal under due consideration at the end of the discussion, but lets wait until then.

Secondly, the discussion has turned tangential at least and has begun to get personal. They may not be personal attacks, per se, but denigrating countries, states, nations or peoples, or their politics or histories, is not conductive to a civil discussion. Lets keep this polite and on topic. Rockpocket 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom comments regarding a completely different subject - hardly. The Arbcom ruling I an citing refers to the subject of WP:Synthesis. Or are you saying they regard WP:Synthesis as OK on some cases? Sarah777 (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that the middle of an AfD is not the time nor place to unilaterally invoke a tangential ArbCom remedy under threat of a ticking clock. To those people who put time into this article, process is important. Let the AfD run its course, then if needed, debate the implication of that ArbCom decision on the title. Rockpocket 02:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Amen. The move, though well-intentioned, I'm sure, could be interpreted as attempting to close the discussion and declare consensus. The debate was still going on yesterday and showed no sign of finishing.--Gazzster (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. In this case I'll defer to your greater wisdom, not least because I don't appear to have any other option. Clock is stopped. But I really think that we can't just keep dismissing the Arbcom ruling on the nature of WP:Synthesis on the basis that "it applies here and here but not there and there" in an arbitrary manner. (For example the same Arbcom WP:Synthesis reasoning is also a fundamental rule in the "List of Massacres" article). It appears to apply only in a way that facilitates suppression of "non-Anglo" value judgments and is ignored as "nothing to do with" any article where it might frustrate Anglo-pov. This is simply not acceptable. Sarah777 (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you ask ArbCom to clarify what they meant. As others pointed out, their "ruling" cannot be broadly applied to its logical conclusion, or else we could not refer to anything that existed before language. There has to be some context. I have no idea what that is (by itself, the comment from ArbCom itself seems rather bizarre to me), but surely the correct process would be to find out from the horses mouth, rather that attempt to interpret it piecemeal. Rockpocket 02:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've read WP:Synthesis. I don't see how it applies here. If we interpret Sarah's point as strictly as that user seems to, we could not have any articles on dinosaurs, Neolithic humans, Homo erectus or Classical Architecture. All of which, in any case, detracts from the pertinent reason for debating the existence of this article:does it serve any useful purpose? --Gazzster (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Gazz, I was gonna say those things. Indeed the pre-historic articles wouldn't exist, as there was no known language spoken. PS- the cavemen probably used a few 'grunt' & 'growls', though. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well if we're going to play "who said it first?" then I did. See my paleolithic comment above!  ;-) AndyJones (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah hah!, so you have. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Douze points - you are all correct in this case - the Arbcom ruling was nonsense concocted to deal with a desire to prevent use of the term "genocide" in relation to the Irish Famine and if applied consistently would destroy Wiki! Still didn't stop them using it to build some sanctions. But unless they change it I'll have to keep it in mind and apply as I see fit - surely it is up to Arbcom to change it? Either that or we can ignore it on the grounds that it is crazy - in which case I'll revisit the Famine article and refer to you guys in support. Sarah777 (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Take care please, you may want to reread Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The post above weakens your case . -- Secisek (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Read them. Not relevant here. All they say is that the rules are sacrosanct and breach of the rules will lead to blocks and bans unless the Wiki-establishment/majority finds the rules don't suit in which case anyone trying to apply the rules consistently may be persecuted. You should give those essays the finger too. My case is watertight - though the Judiciary may well be corrupt. Sarah777 (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it amazing how often phrases like "take care", "warning", "be careful" crop up in free and friendly debate in the Wiki...eh..."community"?! Sarah777 (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other two members of the court - so, more like the Special Criminal Court than a Diplock Court? - but I'm at least as incorruptible as a British journalist. Does that make you feel better? Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Jumper Bumpers: Can we please wait until the AfD has run its course. On behalf of humanity, let's wait (PS- Am I overdoing it?). GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

We are waiting - the clock was stopped last night. Yes Angus, of course it does - as does that British sense of "fair play" and "love of the underdog" and whatever other stuff they feed the kids! Sarah777 (talk) 02:03, 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 as incorrect, unsourced original research. —Travis^talk 18:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Nations Controlled by the United Kingdom

List of Nations Controlled by the United Kingdom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

It would appear that this list is original research. Did the UK ever have sovereignty over Cuba? Laos? Vietnam? Tanzania definitely not (Tanganyika was a protectorate, as was Zanzibar, but Tanzania is an independent nation). Nor Timor Leste? Has been unreferenced for 9 or so months. And the word controlled is not defined within context. Россавиа ^Диалог 19:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. It needs a lot of improvement; i.e, not referring to the colonies as the United States, but I think most of this can be sourced and done properly. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - this list is OR nonsense on multiple levels. "Nations" and "controlled" are very vague. Minorca, Flordia and Bermuda aren't nations. And, I'm sorry, but when did the British ever "control" Italy? Japan? Senegal? Give me a break. Finally, the notion that the United Kingdom "controls" England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is absurd - those four nations are in voluntary union. Biruitorul (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Painful to look at. It's not just original research, it's uninformed/ignorant/don't know what you're talking about original research. It's an indiscriminate list that looks like someone putting check marks by a list of nations. There was a time when the sun never set on the British Empire, but it was never this sunny. Mandsford (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, bad list (uninformative) with bad criteria (minimally misleading), and no real organization to make sense of it. Yes, there were multiple competing claims for e.g. Cuba, but the British never convincingly controlled even a fraction of that island. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No sources, absolute rubbish, some of these have never been states. --neonwhite user page talk 02:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. A bare list like this is not useful; if this kind of article is going to be done as a list, it would have to include sourceable indications of when the UK controlled each country in order to avoid spurious claims like some of those mentioned above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Try as I might, I can't fit a single consistent definition of "nation" or "control" onto this list, which backs up the claim of OR, and I don't think the author really could either. The article would appear to be a combination of vaguely-grounded facts (yes, the UK did administer various parts of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific in years gone by) and some inspired guesswork (it's early in the morning here, but the closest I think the Brits got to "controlling" Lebanon and Syria was having TE Lawrence running around the desert, and Iceland and Laos seem very unusual). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR. --Sharkface217 03:09, 21 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 02:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Futurekids

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

Once the misleading edit summaries are sorted through, the article reads like an advertisement. Article claims that Futurekids is "recognized nationally and internationally for school technology solutions that work," but the citation for that "recognition" is self-generated, and was removed from BNet (the claimed source). In short, this is nothing mroe than an advertisement masquerading as an article, and the author has seemingly used some deception in maintaining the masquerade. Justin Eiler (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I find Futurekids pages in many languages and countries using Google, but nearly impossible to locate unibased third-party notable coverage. I suspect that an organization this big/widespread might be notable per WP:CORP, but without proper sourcing through reliable sources, and with the persistence of SIWC (talk · contribs) in using non-neutral prose it may be impossible to keep. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I am a third party writing about Futurekids, and not in anyway related to the company. This is my first attempt at posting on Wikipedia. I have researched articles on other companies and followed the format accepted for them. In actuality, there is promotion of products at a high level on some of the sites I reviewed which have not been challenged. I will remove the offending citation. However, the article was reposted as written due to vandalism of the page with a reloading of an early, incomplete version of the page that was accidentally created before I realized there is no way to actually save the page while working on it. Futurekids is a worldwide supplier of technology training and courses used in many school districts. However, it is a small company and works behind the scenes, thus not attracting the attention of a wide number of independent sources of review. Futurekids works with a number of major technology vendors, as noted in the article. Their role in several major educational efforts are noted within the article and contribute to the overall notability of the company. I am not trying to be difficult, but I am struggling with understanding why this particular company page has been selected for deletion. Thus, I request more specific information on the specific language (other than the above noted citation) that is offensive, and what can be done to change this. SIWC (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, SWIC. What you might want to do is create the incomplete article in your user space, say at User:SWIC/Futurekids. That way, you can craft the article, make sure it satisfies notability and does not violate neutral point of view, and you'll have time and space to work on the article. Justin Eiler (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I've read your comments on my talk page. Unfortunately, I spent a lot of time studying the policies and felt I had followed them. As a social psychologist, I do know that individual perceptions of events and documents can cover a wide range of viewpoints, with none being totally right or wrong. Hence, the request for more specifics since in my viewpoint it follows the criteria. As noted, the Futurekids page is less promotional than many other company pages I reviewed. Thanks.SIWC (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. The goal here is not to challenge legitimate material, but make certain that we properly cite verifiable reliable sources, usually nontrivial unbiased third-party sources which have notability of their own (e.g. Bob's website would not be considered reliable even if it is unbiased). - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Additional thought. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for inclusion. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This subject clearly has enough mention is second party sources to pass WP:COMPANY criteria. I can see no valid reason to suggest deletion or assume bad faith as the nominator has done. --neonwhite user page talk 02:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Keep in mind that when this was nominated it was singing the praises of the organization more than a Libyan press secretary just before a 1980s Qadaffi speech. No bad faith was presumed at the time of the nomination. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The nominator has made accusations of deception which are incivil and inapropriate in a deletion discussion. --neonwhite user page talk 14:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment If this side-conversation needs to continue, then we need to take it to a talk page rather than the AfD. Justin Eiler (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep there are enough sources to indicate that it is notable. It needs rather drastic editing though. I've started removing some oft he puffery.DGG (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to have established WP:NOTABILITY. --Sharkface217 03:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as above. (jarbarf) (talk) 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 Keep (non-admin closure), withdrawn as I'm sick of being abused. Collectonian (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operational sex ratio

Operational sex ratio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N and has been orphaned for over a month. Seems to be a name for just one scientists concept or theory rather than a wide reaching topic. Collectonian (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• keep very, very, far from being "just one scientists concept or theory" but is in fact a technical term very much in use in several subdisciplines within biology. Every undergraduate student in ecology or evolution ought to be able to recite the definition. Entering "Operational sex ratio" into Web of science returns 32 pages of hits. Entering the phrase, in quotes, into google scholar [22] might have been worthwhile prior to nominating for deletion... Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Note, wikipedia needs an article on Sex ratio theory, there's a wee bit at Sex_ratio#Sex_ratio_theory, and some more in Unbeatable strategy, W.D._Hamilton#Extraordinary_sex_ratios, but I would think a redirect of this term to such a page (if one were to exist, but it doesn't) would be appropriate. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, the Google Scholar results alone should dispel any notion this is a fringe term. --Dhartung | Talk 22:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  I note that the nominator has (re)placed a prod tags on Tim Clutton-Brock 10 times today, then placed (and removed) a "notability" template. The Tim Clutton-Brock article's creator has been blocked for disruption in removing the tags, which seems very harsh considering the unreasonableness of a prod tag on the bio of an FRS. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral with a comment, despite the deviation from the current discourse. a clarification: it was a speedy tag repeatedly removed, and as the admin who ultimately removed it, considering the combativeness of the editor involved in repeatedly removing the tag despite warnings and explanations, the block is quite appropriate. (And shorter than I'd have levied, but that's neither here nor there.) Collectonian saw no notability in the article, and I can understand that viewpoint; opinions differ, which is why we tend to be guided by consensus-building. Since then, she has recognized the inherent notability of that subject, through the work of other editors, and has accepted it; chances are, if this discussion focuses on proof of notability instead of on the nominator, she would be happy to reconsider her position. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is a very false and misleading statement. I placed a CSD on Tim Clutton-Brock, not a PROD. As such, the creator removing the tag violated policy, refused to stop removing it despite more than 5 warnings, and was blocked for that and being completely uncivil. An admin removed the CSD after the creator was blocked, and I tagged for notability until it was clarified that WP:PROF gives blanket notability to FRS. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. I find your bringing that up here extremely inappropriate, particularly when you are making very incorrect statements about it. It is beyond uncalled for and has nothing to do with this at all. Collectonian (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep obviously. The notion that it's just one scientist is nonsense. The exact phrase gets 2,540 on google scholar, occurring mostly in titles of papers, by many many different authors. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, this is certainly a term I've heard from evolutionary biologists, without even mentioning Clutton-Brock. -- Mithent (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, I have added several references that explicitly discuss the term. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, the references in the article and hits on Google Scholar suggest this topic is notable. --Pixelface (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Here's an idea: try doing some research before you imply that it "seems to be a name for just one scientist's concept or theory rather than a wide-reaching topic." Since you're not a scientist, stick to making contributions to the Christianity pages. Otherwise, perhaps I might feel one day like pretending I know a lot about Christianity, and mark some articles for deletion.Vanheusden (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Should I even ask why you said anything about Christianity? I don't make contributions to Christianity-related pages, and making threats of retribution is not appropriate. As a side note, this comment is that users first and only contribution. Collectonian (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Amount of contributions is irrelevant to my initial point. Please don't mark articles for deletion unless you've done your homework on the subject.Vanheusden (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. If the article doesn't make its notability clear and gives the impression it is a pet theory, has been tagged for multiple issues for over 3 months without being touched, has only one source and little context, then I will view it as lacking notability and nominate it for deletion. People don't want their articles nominated, they should do a better job starting them. Collectonian (talk) 00:22, 20 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. faithless (^speak) 07:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mic Little

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

Put It in a Letter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable musician with little or no media coverage and no references; sole single almost charted in the US ("Bubbling Under"). Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:MUSIC#Songs and WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - No evidence that he satisfies WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. BRMo (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Why wasn't this speedied? --Sharkface217 03:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, would not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:39, 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. John254 02:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bracketology

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

"Bracketology" is a fake word created by Joe Lunardi and ESPN solely for their marketing. It is not "the process" of "predicting the field of the NCAA Basketball tournament" nor is it "the" process of doing that for any other tournament.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasDawg (talk • contribs) 15:46, 19 March 2008

• Keep - Search for Bracketology yields 504,000 results, and use of the concept (which it has morphed into) in articles from CBS, the Chicago Sun-Times, The Guardian, and Atlanta Journal-Constitution just for starters. KnightLago (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• A Google search would produce similar results for countless other non-words that aren't notable and don't merit or have Wikipedia entries. -- TexasDawg (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, here is an article about two math professors who researched the subject and then wrote about it in the New York Times. Here is a book about the subject. Here is an economics essay on the subject. As I stated above, this concept has morphed beyond ESPN's original creation. KnightLago (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The numerous articles that discuss this seem to refer to a similar, if not identical, process in sports competitions. Even if it was a fake word created at some point, it now has a wider, more broad meaning now. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, neologism with plenty of secondary source coverage. --Dhartung | Talk 21:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per KnightLago. Also, it seems somewhat poor form to me to describe an article in an AfD nomination and then edit the article to coincide with that description. Maxamegalon2000 23:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep ... per the NYT, bracketology is defined clearly in Wikipedia:

Nowhere is the growth of the bracket's prestige more evident than with the proliferation of bracketology, a concept defined in Wikipedia, not Webster's.

It is no longer enough to wait for the field to be announced and fill in the bracket with predicted winners. It is now sport to spend the regular season predicting which teams will win bids to the tournament, how they will be seeded and where they will play. source

How ironic if it were not to be found in Wikipedia. Calwatch (talk) 09:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Has anyone looked at WP:NEOLOGISM? --Sharkface217 03:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  Yes. "Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." I believe multiple articles about it, an article by scholars, and a book qualifies. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The proposal for deletion is an agenda-related movement by a person who is outwardly anti-establishment. Frivolous, agenda-driven.
• Weakish keep This could be better. But It's O. K. Mm40 (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Agreed with Calwatch in the topic subject. NoseNuggets (talk) 2:21 AM US EDT Mar 2 2008
• Keep. The word is no more real or fake than any other word used in language today. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:21, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Midst of Lions

Midst of Lions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Likely non-notable band. Prod removed by an anonymous who cunningly added the line "notable band from Detroit, MI"; i'm not sure that's enough to sway me to keep, though. tomasz. 19:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete, fails all aspects of WP:MUSIC utterly. I searched for reliable sources but found nothing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, fails all relevant guidelines. – ukexpat (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. Chris (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Simply fails (see above). --Sharkface217 03:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as above. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, while the user removing the prod made a persuasive argument, I'm still not sure that the subject of this wall of text meets WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:41, 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 per lack of reliable sources or demonstrated notability in the sense of WP:MUSIC. Tikiwont (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chuggo

Chuggo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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

A very short biographal article based around a man who featured in just one youtube video, which is the only reference to him in the article, this has no or very little notability at all. The itself video that this person features does not appear to be very notable either. AndreNatas (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:BIO/WP:BAND (Is he a band?!). Scarian^{Call me Pat} 23:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Chuggo is about to blow up. Really big. He's got an album out, he's a recorded artist. He's got the internet going nuts.Kbhoyt (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing to prove a word of it. The picture could be any guy anywhere without a citation. DarkAudit (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If you watch the video you will see it's the same guy. http://www.mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=5396, http://www.rapdict.org/Chuggo, and http://www.hiphopcanada.com/_site/entertainment/interviews/ent_int289.php Kbhoyt (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete just not notable. Polly (Parrot) 00:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. If he is "about to blow up", we'll need to wait until that happens. Maybe then an article can be written. But for now WP:CRYSTAL. freshacconcispeaktome 00:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm also wondering if this is partially a hoax. He was tried for bottom-grabbing? And this is punishable for up to 20 years in prison? I'll need see where in the Canadian Criminal Code that gem lies before I believe it. freshacconcispeaktome 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• That part was edited out of the article by another editor. I guess it was an attempt at humour. freshacconcispeaktome 17:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Y'all wanna go against Chuggo? Yo, FUCK. THAT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.9.47 (talk • contribs)
• Strong Keep First the heptacorn, now chuggo??? — 68.33.74.121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong Keep The kids buy his shit, that's how he gets cash. — Masrith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong Keep - Chuggo is a legitimate rapper from Toronto. He's a Toronto staple. Just because he's not notable in other circles doesn't mean he's not notable. Chuggo is to Toronto is what Cadence Weapon is to Edmonton. The next big thing. Saying he's not notable is like saying a town with a population of 175 such as Czar, Alberta(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czar%2C_Alberta) isn't notable. More people have heard of Chuggo than Czar.Ohinabus (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2008 (MST) — Ohinabus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note to closing admin - Above few comments seem strange? Scarian^{Call me Pat} 12:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —freshacconcispeaktome 00:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Procedural Comment. I semi-protected the Chuggo article for five days due to an unusual wave of IP vandalism that seems to have started today. If any IPs participate in this debate, and they want to change the article, I hope someone will assist them. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Notability cannot be established. As Wikipedia is not a democracy, I'm sure the closing Admin will disregard those comments and take the proper actions. --Sharkface217 03:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep He is notable enough to go beyond small circles. He has done a lot more than one record and has been interviewed by a popular Canadian hiphop site. Are you saying that normal indie artists cannot be notable? Klichka (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice until such time that multiple, reliable non-trivial works are published about the subject. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, would not appear to meet the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC).
• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. BWH76 (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Chuggo's influence over the internet, and in real life, is spreading. His video has been viewed nearly 80,000 times on youtube, and various parodies made [See Here]. Also, there are pictures to prove that the picture in the wiki page is Chuggo, as it is featured in his interview with Hip Hop Canada [Here]. Also, his album is for sale currently, on itunes at least [Here], although trying to find a link to any HMV or other listing was impossible for me. His notability is growing every second. For these reasons, i suggest a strong keep of this article... it is due to grow large folks, mark my words. -HoZKiNZ2 (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If it's due to grow large, there will still be a place here when that finally happens. --Onorem♠Dil 00:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note, i signed my above comment. Nonetheless, whether or not Chuggo is due to become larger than he already is is not the issue, he is already notable for his influence in the Hip Hop culture in Toronto, as shown by his interview, and his already large prescence on the internet. I was merely stating that he is going to become larger. This article should remain here based on his current notability, and will continue to grow as more information is learnt about him, and he becomes even more notable. -HoZKiNZ2 (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You had signed. My mistake. Must have been an edit conflict. I've replaced your original signature. Sorry about that. --Onorem♠Dil 00:28, 27 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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laughter in Literature

Laughter in Literature (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't see how this, despite the reference, can be anything other than just a list and/or WP:OR. ukexpat (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• this page is definitely still under construction I have probably put it online prematurely (it's the first page I create). it's not meant to be original research I have for articles about this subject lying in front of me atm. More progress should be made in the following hours and weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aavw ru (talk • contribs) 19:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep, this is now far from comprehensive but the topic has been studied in depth. A History of English LaughterLaughter in Crime and Punishmentreduced laughter A related term is "comical discourse". This is much more than comic literature or humorous literature. --Dhartung | Talk 22:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Should any Wiki-projects be notified about this discussion? --Sharkface217 03:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep good start. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:43, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Wizardman 16:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] America, Fuck Yeah

America, Fuck Yeah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:MUSIC did not chart, no significant history Rtphokie (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. TexasDawg (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Team America: World Police. PC78 (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per above, though it is a shame. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Valid article. Catchpole (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge Noneforall (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per Mattbuck. Books! JuJube (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. The song isn't independently notable. 23skidoo (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Merge Per consensus. --Sharkface217 03:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Soundtracks are not encyclopedic, --Dwilso (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep far better sources for this topic than the horribly sourced things kept after discussions like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Okashina_Okashi_-_Strange_Candy. San Francisco Chronicle February 3, 2008 "You'll be singing "America, F- Yeah!" for a week." The Guardian June 30, 2006 "look to the movie Team America and its lusty litany of the country's contributions to the world - "Rock'n'roll, fuck yeah!/The internet, fuck yeah!/Slavery, fuck yeah!" - encased in a flawless parody of gung-ho, Simpson-and- Bruckheimer coke-rock." Statesman Journal February 9, 2006 "I still am bitter that "America, F*** Yeah" from "Team America: World Police" wasn't nominated [for an Oscar] last year." Sydney Morning Herald December 13, 2005 "The 2004 tune, much of which we can't print here, was penned by the creators of SBS's animated South Park series and - give or take a couple of vowels - its chorus goes a little something like this: America, fork yeah! Coming again to save the motherforking day, yeah!" Ottawa Citizen July 29, 2005 "Team America -- specifically, the anthemic theme song that accompanied any military action: America, F--- Yeah! Comin' to save the motherf---ing day, again! Yeah!" So we have reputable sources in the US, UK, Canada, and Australia for this and can actually write a verifiable, neutral article about it. --Dragonfiend (talk)06:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Links? PC78 (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Article needs better sourcing but an AfD is not a call for improvement. - Dravecky (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, the sources provided by (the unsigned) Dragonfiend can be used to write a neutral article. --Pixelface (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. An icon of our generation! __earth ^(Talk) 10:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • FUCK YEAH! (it had to be done) -mattbuck (Talk) 13:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • FUCK YEAH! __earth ^(Talk) 13:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • In fact, here's a whyole song - Wikipedia - FUCK YEAH! -mattbuck (Talk) 14:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge - as per nom AND the fact that this is original research. BWH76 (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• keep per Dragonfiend. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy and put under Category:Wikipedia humor. No assertion in the article that it is independently notable but it is funny. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to the film article - Does not assert enough notability as is to be its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:38, 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 merge. I'm just gonna redirect it though, the mergists can re-add in content. Wizardman 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm So Ronery

I'm So Ronery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:MUSIC did not chart, no significant history Rtphokie (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge into Team America: World Police. PC78 (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per above. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge Noneforall (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per above. --Sharkface217 03:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and don't bother trying to merge anything. No useful info - a good song, though. :) —97198 talk 13:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:OR. BWH76 (talk) 15:38, 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 relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Julian Revermann

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

I've checked claims and added a couple of links but I am still sceptical that this person is notable enough for an entry. Paste (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:BIO, no reliable secondary source coverage. KnightLago (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY. --Sharkface217 03:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It fails if not more two of Wikipedia's article guidelines. I say delete as it has no notable content. Nothing444 14:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep If this article is deleted, I will lose three edits. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 08:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. BWH76 (talk) 15:37, 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.

[edit] Oracle Fusion Middleware

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nomination withdrawn as article rescued. Bardcom (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oracle Fusion Middleware (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete Poorly written article on a subject of questionable notability. Tags were placed on this article last October and December, but very little improvement since. Basically the article is written like an ad, has no references, and is therefore original research. Bardcom (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Nomination withdrawn Thanks to Michig for rescuing the article and thanks to Celarnor for help and advice Bardcom (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- non notable, advert. AndreNatas (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Being poorly written is no reason for deletion. The various components are in some cases very widely used, and have been the subject of several text books written and published independent of Oracle. I disagree that it's written like an ad.--Michig (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Plus, there are plenty of news articles([23]).--Michig (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a ref. to a Gartner paper that discusses amongst other things the revenue Oracle receive from OFM, which I think makes it clear that the subject is notable. By all means slap a {{refimprove}} tag on the article, but there's no way it should be deleted.--Michig (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems to be notable by news coverage. If the nominator has problems with the way the article is written, he/she should be WP:BOLD and fix it rather than throw it at AfD. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Celarnor, if the article is notable, it should have references and stand on it's own two feet. Numerous tags were added to the article, and the article remained poorly written. I nominated the article because of this. Perhaps if you have a problem with articles being "thrown" at AfD, you can be WP:Bold and fix it yourself. I wouldn't know where to start with it. Bardcom (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Searching Google and Google News is always a good start in determining notability, although lack of hits on either would not necessarily indicate a lack of notability. In what way is the article poorly written? I don't want to spend too much time on this article but if you have specific concerns I'll have a go at addressing them.--Michig (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That kind of thinking indicates a deep, deep misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. Something isn't notable because of what's written in an the article, things are notable based on what's in the real world. And I would be out fixing articles such as this if I wasn't spending all my time on AfDs trying to keep them from getting deleted. My point is that before putting something up for AfD, you should either research it yourself or refer the article to the article rescue squad. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Celarnor, I respectfully disagree. A stub article has a certain period of time to reach a level of quality - editors can write the article and search for verified sources to back up claims. Articles that do not meet this level of minimim quality usually indicate a lack of notability. This article has been tagged for a loooonnngggg time, and still fails to back up any claims made. Don't wag the finger at me for nominating the article - look instead to the editors who created a poor quality article, made numerous unsubstantiated claims, and ignored the polite tagging reminding them to address the issues highlighted. Perhaps the product is notable, but the article should stand alone and not require readers to verify this fact for themselves. A discussion has been started on the article talk page. Bardcom (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:DEADLINE, Wikipedia has no deadline. AfDs are not about the article. They are about the subject. If the subject is notable and sourcable, than it does not deserve deletion. Per the news sources given higher up in the AfD, and the ones already on the page, and the numerous technical reviews and whitepapers as well as winning awards, there's really no reason to delete this; reason to improve upon it, sure, as many of these things are not listed on the page, but not to delete it. AfD is not forced cleanup. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, this is not a consumer level product, but it is notable. It's quite easy to find sources. The article could use more of them, and a rewrite to make it more accessible, but it does not need to explain everything in layman's terms (middleware being, by definition, software that acts as the glue or conduit between two other unrelated pieces of software). --Dhartung | Talk 21:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly notable enterprise software. The article could use some work, but that's not a reason for deletion. Klausness (talk) 23:52, 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. Tikiwont (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] V-zine

V-zine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Uh, it's a website. Or a CD. But definitely a buzzword – none of which makes it a notable definition. 9Nak (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete looks awfully spammy to me. DarkAudit (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Beyond uncyclopedic, non-notable, and overall unneeded. Two One Six Five Five ^τ _ʃ 18:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- per all above. AndreNatas (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. – ukexpat (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Came across this via Special:Random and would have nominated it myself. I was too slow, so am offering my vote instead. Callmederek (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, Neo-spamcruftisement. --Dhartung | Talk 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. --Sharkface217 03:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, seems to fail the WP:NEO notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:43, 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 speedy delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mendicity

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

This entry consists of (a) an (inaccurate) dictionary definition, and (b) a hoax description of an "International Committee for the Introduction of Mendicity in the English Language" which does not exist because it does not need to: the word "mendicity" is already in the English language - see any dictionary - and has been (according to the SOED), since the Late Middle English period, 14th-15th century. JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as hoax. Tagged as such. User:Mendicitor is the author, and is their only edit to date. DarkAudit (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- as hoax, could be original research. AndreNatas (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Bardcom (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 18:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per DarkAudit (talk · contribs), appears to be a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:57, 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 per near unanimous consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elaine Kelley

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

Non-notable individual failing WP:BIO. Prod contested by article's creator Relata refero (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:BIO. No secondary source coverage focusing on her. A search for her and Daniel Pipes, who she is supposedly notable for misquoting, yields 16 hits when omitting duplicates. The misquote part might not even be accurate. She is a Palestinian human rights activist according Washington Reports (which has its own POV), and Pipes appears to be on the other side of the issue. I recommend deletion until there are reliable secondary sources without POV. KnightLago (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete there also appears to be a "Sister Elaine Kelley" involved in Middle East issues who doesn't appear to be the same person. I found nothing in Google, Google News or Google News Archives. Fails WP:BIO by not having multiple, reliable, independent sources that have substantial coverage, and it doesn't look like it will ever meet that standard. Noroton (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Does not appear to have notability. --Sharkface217 03:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral More sources needed--Dwilso (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources are added quickly. Deb (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per KnightLago. BWH76 (talk) 15:40, 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 - non admin closure, article was speedy deleted. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Velossa Raptors

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

Completely non-notable band - no coverage whatsoever. [24] Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as a completely non-notable band, and have added CSD tag to page as such. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Yeah, I tagged it for SD before - but then it returned with some..err.semblance of notability claims. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'd like to see where the notability is myself. A band that just formed in 2008 and hasn't released a single, and smells like something that was created at school all point to a quick and clean deletion. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:09, 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 per WP:BLP - no assertion of, nor evidence of, notability through verifiable secondary WP:sources. If such do become available, re-create it then. Seems like a nice family man and a good businessman, but so what? Bearian (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mark hurwitz