Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 31

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

The result was speedy close. This is a self-evidently notable, core topic for an encyclopedia. Willing to assume good faith regarding the nomination, but deletion isn't a viable means of resolving editorial problems. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Communism

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

Quite obviously anyone who has taken part in writing this article does not know anything about communism or what it is. I wouldn't be surprised if the people who wrote this article have not read a single word of Marx's work. It doesn't give a correct definition of communism. It is completely pro western.
China- under the heading "After the collapse of the Soviet Union", there is map it says that the PRC is one of the remaining communist countries. What a load of rubbish, The Peoples Republic of China has the worlds fasted growing economy, how is this possible under communism.
Cold War Years- under this article, why does it say the words "Communist government". There can not be so such thing as a communist government. As that would imply some one running a country, which can not happen under communism and a communist country, which can not happen either as i have explained earlier. This article is awful
Criticism of communism- First, this section is criticizing something, which they do not know nothing about. So is pointless. Secondly, why isn't there a section "Meriting of Communism"? Since there isn't i believe this article to be POV, when it should be NPOV. If a person that had no idea of what Communism was, and read this article, the person would still not understand what Communism was! This just gives the pro-western perspective of communism. There is many complaints of this article in its discussion page. [1]. The article is also missing citations or footnotes, Its neutrality is disputed and Its factual accuracy is disputed. This article needs to be deleted and re-written. Ijanderson977 (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• SPEEDY DELETE As per above. Ijanderson977 (talk) 00:15, 1 April 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 23:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zombie Nation (film)

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

Delete Appears to be a small independent dtv zombie film with no assertion of notability. CyberGhostface (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, notable filmmaker, over 1900 people have considered this movie bad enough to make imdb's bottom 3 worst films. Corvus cornix_talk 23:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't see how that makes it notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, especially as that list is hardly permanent. Or how Lommel is a notable filmmaker, either. He seems to be reviled by the horror crowd but that's pretty much it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per [2] [3]. --Smashville^BONK! 23:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, while not the primary subject, the mentions here aren't trivial: [4]. --Smashville^BONK! 23:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Seems to have been reviewed in multiple reliable sources (per Smashville), and the director seems fairly notable within his genre as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep based on Smashville. Oddly, we don't have articles on (nor does his article mention) his most highly thought of and/or successful films, The Tenderness of Wolves (film) (no relation to the 2006 novel; a literary quote?), Strangers in Paradise (film) (no relation to the comic book), or BrainWaves. --Dhartung | Talk 00:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep based on the references from Smashville. Lugnuts (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, there are sources[5] like the San Francisco Chronicle, Variety, and Fangoria. --Pixelface (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep It is somewhat notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:45, 2 April 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. SorryGuy  Talk  19:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DreamStream

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

Article on a start-up with no independent sources; ad-like but not blatant spam. Surely fails WP:CORP - note that its first product launch is coming next month. Also note that this article has been deleted under CSD G11 twice. Mangojuice^talk 23:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability. Google news turns up nothing but a different product with the same name. —BradV 00:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no sort of external coverage. -Drdisque (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Concerning notability, Wikipedia states: "... smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." Thus, it does not fail WP:CORP. Furthermore, within the encryption industry, DreamStream's technology is both unprecedented and unparalleled, which, from a journalistic standpoint, makes this entry valuable. Johndiff (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, smaller organizations can be notable. That doesn't mean they are. To pass WP:CORP, we need "coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." —BradV 17:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Unprecedented and unparalleled" is kind of a hard claim to back up when DreamStream doesn't even describe their technology. So I think that claim is quite dubious and needs to be backed up with a reliable, independent source. Mangojuice^talk 21:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Unreliable sources, basically just advertising. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 02:21, 3 April 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) with strong consensus to merge. Skomorokh 02:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shorewood Stadium

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

Fails WP:RS, and WP:N NimiTize 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with NimiTize (talk · contribs), and the article is also unsourced WP:OR and reads like spam/advertising. Cirt (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge any verifiable information into Shorewood High School (Wisconsin) and redirect. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Shorewood High School (Wisconsin). It was the home of a college football team for many years, albeit one that only competed in Division I for one year and not the years it was at this stadium. No reason not to have a redirect. --Dhartung | Talk 00:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Shorewood High School (Wisconsin) as per Dhartung. Certainly a valid search term, and no reason not to have a mention in the school article.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect These merge comments all echo my thoughts. Royalbroil 15:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect I agree with the above comments.Thank you-RFD (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge as per above Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 02:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Black Kite 23:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Age of Tech

Golden Age of Tech (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

After searching in multiple databases/news archives, I was unable to find any secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources that significantly discuss or analyze "Golden Age of Tech" in relation to Scientology. One book, Controversial New Religions makes a passing mention in a footenote on one page, but I could not find any other books not affiliated with the Church of Scientology that discussed this subject matter in any significant detail. Another passing mention is made in Scientology's Study Technology by David S. Touretzky and Chris Owen - but this is also briefly and in one sentence, and not enough of a significant discussion to assert notability. I found zero mention whatsoever in 2 different news archive sources, and no results in InfoTrac. Cirt (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons given, I guess. It's kind of silly because we have David Miscavige acknowledging its existence as well as that of GAK. WillOakland (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  This source provides a minimal description. WillOakland (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for providing that source, and that could be very useful at articles David Miscavige and Church of Scientology, but I don't think it is enough significant discussion and analysis to warrant notability. Cirt (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  I've added two other mentions to Talk:Golden Age of Tech, but they're not very notable. AndroidCat (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, again could be good sources for other main articles, but they are both less than one-sentence mentions, not really significant discussion of the subject matter. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Scientology. Probably not notable by itself, but I'm certainly familiar with it and I think it plays a significant role in the CoS. 68.40.58.255 (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Any secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources to back up that assertion? Cirt (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable article. Merge to main article. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 15:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This is only notable within the cofs. Excerpting and merging into the main article may improve the main article, however.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:18, 3 April 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 --JForget 23:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clear Lair TCG

Clear Lair TCG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable per WP:N, no refs per WP:RS. ukexpat (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems to be a future (WP:FUTURE) game made up by non-notable people (WP:MADEUP). I can't follow the link in the article (mainly because users shouldn't have to subscribe to view a source or reference). Bosh it! Booglamay (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be unsourced WP:OR, only 2 external links given appear to be self-promotion, and a message board. Agree with Ukexpat (talk · contribs) and Booglamay (talk · contribs) - no notability or significant coverage is asserted in secondary sources. The article is also poorly formatted. Cirt (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Gsearch coming up with a single non-wiki ghit, which is a forum. "References" in article are not showing notability in the least. Not even clear that the game exists yet -- article seems to indicate it's still being made up.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per A7 or WP:CSD#G11. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete While the article is poor, I'll remind everyone of WP:BITE. That said, this topic doesn't appear to be notable. Hobit (talk) 02:26, 3 April 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 --JForget 23:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Midwest Plaza

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

PROD removed by author, saying "Wikipedia has infinite capacity, it is not cluttering the website. Why should this not have an article. I was going to expand it." Wikipedia may have a large capacity but it is not an indiscriminate collection of information and does have notability criteria - see "Buildings and structures" in WP:NPT#Places; having 20 floors, being the 30th tallest building in Minneapolis and appearing in a list of skyscrapers is not notable. JohnCD (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Can you just add this information in to the Minneapolis area somewhere? Brentoli (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

KeepThere are building alot smaller that have articles, why shouent this one? Alaskan assassin (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete, not much of a claim to notability. This was the most extensive coverage I could find. (Note: there are scads of Google Books hits, but all are apparently address listings of companies.) At best, it was 5th tallest in the city when completed. --Dhartung | Talk 22:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- Eóin (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - It is the subject of secondary sources that are beyond the scope of "trivial." --Oakshade (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per recent addition of several references by Eóin. -- Rai-me 01:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• I can't get very excited about this building. Architecture critic Larry Millett's book, AIA Guide to the Twin Cities, doesn't cover this tower. I've been using his book pretty much as a bible for buildings in Minneapolis-St. Paul, so if he doesn't include it, he didn't consider it interesting. Midwest Plaza isn't particularly architecturally notable, and it wasn't designed by a famous architect. (On the other hand, according to Emporis, it was the fictional home of WJM-TV in The Mary Tyler Moore Show.) I guess I'm voting for a weak delete on this one. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Larry Millett's book is great but it doesn't cover the mundane and ordinary buildings in the Twin Cities. I think this article has weight as a business building rather than on its architectural merits. The article has been expanded greatly and looks nothing like when it was first nominated for deletion. -Eóin (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - do we want to cover "mundane and ordinary buildings"? JohnCD (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean buildings that one local architecture critic doesn't consider interesting enough. If an article has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" then I believe we do "want" to cover them. Eóin (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This building has clearly "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as the list of 10 references makes clear. NoIdeaNick (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Sounds like it maybe warrants a one-sentence mention over at Mary Tyler Moore Show. Other than that.. what is there to say about this building? The article right now basically reads "yes, it's a building.. someone owns it.. and there are tenants." There is nothing to indicate why an encyclopedia would cover this topic. There are other "list of buildings" websites- Wikipedia isn't mean to be one of them. Friday (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, the 10 references says it all. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 20:02, 4 April 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. Unsourced, no real-world notability asserted. Black Kite 23:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Morita (Starship Troopers)

Morita (Starship Troopers) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fictional weapon, appears to fail WP:N. Content could be merged to the film article, but anything more than a line would seem to be undue weight. Skomorokh 21:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Also listed in this deletion debate:

Marauder (Starship Troopers) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• There is no reason for it to be deleted. There needs to be more articles about Starship Troopers and everything in the article is fact. Who cares if it is a fictional weapon, it's in the Starship Trooper universe so therefor the article needs to remain. There are many more articles on here about fictional weapons so there is no reason for it to be deleted. Also it does not fail WP:N, it meets the requirements. General Mannino (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, General. I have responded to your comments at your talkpage. You say that "it does fail WP:N" but then say that "it meets requirements". Which requirements do you mean, if not WP:N? You may also want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, for arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Regards, Skomorokh 21:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• • LOL @ the idea of an article about a fictional weapon being "fact". JuJube (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete blatantly non-notable. <eleland/talkedits> 21:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• How is it not notable? There's many articles on here about fictional weapons of movies, video games, etc. so why is this one so different? It's not different, it's the same, so if this gets deleted than that means many other articles should be deleted as well. And by the way I made a typo error, I meant to say it does NOT fail WP:N. General Mannino (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No notability is established, and the referencing is inadequate, much of the article appears to be WP:OR, and what little notable material could be seen could be a brief mention in one of the more main articles. Cirt (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both total fancruft. JuJube (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• You people probably don't know a thing about Starship Troopers. It's not fancruft, which by the way isn't a word, it's true hardcore fact. General Mannino (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neither is Morita. :\ JuJube (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, I read the book several times since I was 14, and (unlike most critics) I enjoyed the movie a lot, although (unlike most fans) I took it mostly as campy political satire. Please cut down on the incivility. There are other Wikis for obscure fan content, you can host your article on one of them. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. <eleland/talkedits> 09:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep both and start a merge discussion. Nominator admits "Content could be merged to the film article." Articles that can be merged should not be nominated for deletion. Next time consider putting a {{merge}} tag on the article first, per WP:ATD . Merging certainly doesn't require a deletion discussion beforehand. --Pixelface (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

These articles do not contain enough relevant information even about the film do deserve much space in that article. Would readers of The Godfather article want several paragraphs on the types of gun used? No. So to "merge" would be to effectively delete 95% of the content of this article. In such situations, calling it a merge is disingenuous, and the community should discuss whether or not the content deserves to be kept or not. Skomorokh 12:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. (Yes, I know it's not a character) -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to film article or a spinoff on weaponry in Starship Troopers, as per WP:FICTION. No real world notability is claimed for this weapon (nor is any likely to be found), so a stand-alone article is unlikely to meet WP:Notability.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable at all Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• This is NOT fan content! You people probably have never seen the movie and in the movie their gun is called the Morita! Watch the movie for proof! Also what about the article M41A pulse rifle from the movie Aliens, it's a fictional weapon and it's not tagged for deletion so why is this? They're basically the same thing except from different movies and a different kind of gun! If this page gets deleted, so should that page! It doesn't need any real world notability because it's a fictional gun like the M41A pulse rifle! If there isn't enough "relevant information" in the article than myself or other people who have seen the ilm can add more content! This is not fan content! It is straight from the film! The information I got are from official Starship Troopers websites such as the official movie websites and the official game website! And by the way Skomorokh, there wouldn't be articles with the types of guns used in The Godfather because they are real guns. The Morita is not real and deserves an article because it is straight from the Starship Troopers film.General Mannino (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep- I agree with General Mannino. I've seen all of the films and played the game, and right now I'm reading the book, I know a lot about Starship Troopers. I think the page Morita should be kept because it is something regarding the film and is not fan created. MI General (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Thank you, finally someone agrees. General Mannino (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: User:MI General's only edits prior to this Afd were to her own userpage and to the article up for deletion. Possible sock. Skomorokh 04:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• I just joined Wikipedia. I was browsing through some Starship Troopers articles and I stumbled upon this. I decided to create an account and post my opinion. MI General (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no independent secondary sources about this topic. Ergo, it is not notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as notable aspect of a fictional work with multiple published sources to verify information. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you. General Mannino (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • You're welcome!  :) Happy editing! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • What on earth is an Amazon search for "starship troopers" supposed to show? We're discussing the notability of this "Morita" weapon, not of Starship Troopers. This weapon was named only in the Verhoeven films, not in the book (although it might be in some non-canon licensed material like the RPG.) <eleland/talkedits> 17:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Then it's appropriate as a sub-article or it could be redirected without deletion to preserve editors' public contributions, but there's no valid reason for outright deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. It's cruft, and appealing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an obvious no-no. Furthermore, I think I smell socks here... Sojourner001 (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:ITSCRUFT is never an acceptable "reason" for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Just because it's not in the book doesn't mean it should be deleted, not everything revolves around the book, you're basically saying that the movie article should be deleted also, the M41A pulse rifle from the movie Aliens is a fictional weapon, but it's a weapon in the movie and is not a weapon used anywhere else and it has an article, this is no different. NOT EVERYTHING REVOLVES AROUND THE BOOK! General Mannino (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's already been clearly explained to you that just because the M41 pulse rifle has an article, it doesn't mean that the Morita should. Neither deserves an article because knowing the name and story behind the weapon doesn't give the reader any deeper comprehension of the movie or the book, and is essentially of little to no practical use to anyone. Even if the movie were about the development of a particular infantry rifle and the political and social ramifications therein, it still wouldn't be deserving of its own article. This article is cruft because it attempts to elevate a piece of inconsequential and non-notable trivia into a subject of encyclopedic significance, which it quite clearly is not. Sojourner001 (talk) 20:29, 6 April 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 --JForget 23:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Farhrenheit 420

Farhrenheit 420 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band that has released two albums. No other assertions of notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7. Fails WP:MUSIC, as there is no indication of whether the label(s) that published the albums is a major one. So tagged. already declined. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Only sources are to primary, self-referential sources, seems to be self-promotion and WP:OR. Also, the title of the article is wrong, should be "Fahrenheit 420". Cirt (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I noticed that. That's merely grounds for a page move without discussion. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It's sort of a manifestation of Geogre's Law, though ... --Dhartung | Talk 01:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No indication that both albums are under a major/notable indie label, which is the notability criterion. General lack of sources. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 23:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing showing passage of WP:BAND. --Dhartung | Talk 01:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability. Possibly self promotion. (p.s. it is spelled wrongly - it should be "Fahrenheit"). — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No claim in article of meeting WP:MUSIC, no professional reviews found at metacritic, no evidence of charting found at allmusic. Only thing approaching notability I found is here, but I'm not sure a nomination for a local music award (and can't find that they won the award) is truly notable. --Fabrictramp (talk) 14:46, 1 April 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 make WP:DAB per Dhartung. The current content is unsourced. Feel free to come up with any other reasonable editorial solution. Sandstein (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amenhirkhopshef

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

Amenhirkhopshef, according to the article, is the son of a king who didn't even live past his first day. Amenhirkhopshef had virtually no impact on history. In addition to not being notable, the article lacks sources and appears to very difficult to source, since the only sources I've found seem to disagree with the article and each other. Even if a reliable source can be found for the small amount of information on the page, the information should be merged into Ramesses III and the article should be made into a redirect. Gflashwnox (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If this is a merge proposal, then it would be better served with merge tags. This is articles for deletion, not articles for merging. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather see the article deleted, and believe that is the proper course of action. The possibility of a merger was only brought as an alternative solution.Gflashwnox (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

*Merge and redirect. While not significant enough for an article, there's no reason to delete. --Dhartung | Talk 22:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, I suspected a transliteration/disambiguation problem, and we already have Amun-her-khepeshef (20th dynasty), who is probably the individual discussed in the article, and Amun-her-khepeshef, his brother's son. There seem to have been some later pharaohs who took the name Ramses-Amenhirkhopshef (transliterated however), as well. I would suggest making this a WP:DAB as this spelling appears in numerous sources. --Dhartung | Talk 22:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Ramesses III Captain panda 03:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:48, 1 April 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. - Philippe 01:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McConnell Hall

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

Delete nn dormitory building; with nothing to indicate notability - an anon basically deleted the article's contents but let's go through process. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete the material present in the article demonstrates that there is nothing significant to say about it--just like almost all college dorms. If there are many more such articles around here, I think I going to have to change the tag on my page to "deletionist"DGG (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, entire article is WP:OR, doesn't assert notability or significant discussion in secondary sources, and is unsourced. Cirt (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to McGill University or an article on all the residence halls of McGill University. No special notability is claimed for this particular dorm.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to McGill University. TerriersFan (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to McGill University#Residential life as per reasoning of Fabrictramp. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete on the grounds that there is also a McConnell Hall at Northern Arizona University, one at the College of Charleston, one for the Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science#McConnell Hall, one at the University of New Hampshire, one at Central Washington University, one at the University of Idaho, one at Smith College, one at Urbana University, one dining hall at Pitzer College, a closed one at the University of New Brunswick, one that used to be a dining hall at Acadia University, and one lecture hall at Meriter Hospital. And if anybody suggests a disambig page, why don't we just make Wikipedia a yellow pages and give up on the whole idea of an encyclopedia? Blast Ulna (talk) 08:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Why isn't it useful for someone looking up information on McConnell Hall to get a list of articles? Most encyclopedias do have indices, by the way. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I think that is the job of Google, which is how I found all the McConnell Halls. My point is that their are tens of thousands of colleges worldwide, each of which has several dorm buildings. Every campus has parking lots, why don't we have redirects for every parking lot? Blast Ulna (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is manually organised in a logical fashion. Google is a search engine which looks for keywords. Ignoring the straw man parking lot and back to the point of debate: your argument is the article should be deleted since there are several McConnell Halls; my argument is the info belongs in the McGill article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Why should we have the redirect? College dorms are not remotely notable, unless there is something truly special about them. My Googling of the other McConnell Halls should be taken as evidence of just how many dorms there are, and of path to DIRECTORY=NOT that we should not be going down. Blast Ulna (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't believe a dab page violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:07, 3 April 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 to delete. Black Kite 23:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Superman Chronicles

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

Series of trade paperbacks with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Has not made the NY Times bestseller list; gsearch not coming up with notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete pn also the article seems a bit like it is advertising the comics described. Captain panda 03:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Seem to be a fair number of reviews.

• http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SNSB&p_theme=snsb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=11040B2DF197FBE0&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
• http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-143180516.html
• http://www.comicsbulletin.com/reviews/116181173013207.htm
• http://www.bookmunch.co.uk/view.php?id=1692
• http://www.earthsmightiest.com/comics/review-the-superman-chronicles-volume-4/

thus Keep Hobit (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• keep per Hobit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Rather pointless article. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep based on the numerous sources found by Hobit. Edward321 (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to the relevant entry - this is already covered here: Action Comics#Collected editions which seems to be the appropriate place for this information to go (and most series have a section for the collected volumes). If there are reviews then add them in there. This seems unnecessary duplication of effort. (Emperor (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

• Comment Not a comics guy, but unless I'm mistaken not all of those in this series will be from Action Comics, correct? Hobit (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not 100% sure of the plans but that would seem a reasonable assumption - in which case the information can be added to the relevant entry - which is where the information should be. There is an argument on precedent as there are Showcase Presents and Marvel Omnibus - although these seem a little thin. If it could be made into something more like DC Archive Editions, Marvel Masterworks and Essential Marvel then I'd be fine with keeping it. The reviews would also help expand the real world context. As it stands it is very thin and just really replicates information elsewhere, hence my suggesting a merge might be the best option (for now - no prejudice on someone working on it in their sandbox and restarting with an improved version if more information is available - history along with some comments from the DC editors/creators about it would be a big boost). (Emperor (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Per others. No valid deletion reason given. Being a trade paperback isn't a deletion reason, neither is not having made the NT Times bestseller list. Hobit was able to produce several reliable sources that would indicate notability. Rray (talk) 01:25, 6 April 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. Housing estates are generally non-notable except in certain exceptional circumstances (i.e. Broadwater Farm). This single line of text certainly asserts no notability. Black Kite 23:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blaze park

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

Delete nn public housing complex, unsourced with no indication of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs), notability is not established, article is unsourced WP:OR and does not assert notability or provide references that do. Cirt (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NN.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Kingswinford. While I generally give geographic locations a free pass in deletions, this just doesn't have enough info in it to help a reader at all. Until it does, best to have it as part of an article on a larger area.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete definitely not notable and probably will never be. Red Phoenix (Talk) 01:56, 4 April 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 23:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kaiketsu Zubat

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

This article is unreferenced, so it fails wikipedia's most fundamental policy, of verifiability. The edit screen for creation of a new article clearly warns editors that unreferenced material may be deleted, and this article has been tagged as unreferenced since June 2006, which is quite long enough for references to be have been added. However, they haven't been added, and now it's time for this article to be deleted as unverified.It was a challenged prod.It fails WP:V and WP:N Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - there is no deadline on Wikipedia, so I don't think the "long enough" reason is valid. -Malkinann (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Because the article currenlty isn't referenced does not mean that it will never be referenced. "Lack of references" is not a means of determining inclusion. The subject is over 30 years old, and there have been no major updates since then. And I am now adding three references to the page, one of which I know of, and two which came up under a search for the title in Japanese. It in no way fails WP:V and WP:N now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Nationally aired television programs are notable. We've got the sources to prove its not made up, so the verifiability problem is fixed as well. --erachima formerly tjstrf 22:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep references seem to be added. Not suprised, such a program is almost certain to have them. DGG (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: The Wikipedia default is that nationally televised serial programs are notable by default, much like named geographic features. There is sufficient indirect referencing in the article to demonstrate it's not a haox, and this seems to be fairly easy to come by, so notability was not very hard to demonstrate. Why has AfD become the cleanup board anyway, instead of notifying the relevant wikiprojects? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Do we even have a tokusatsu Wikiproject? --erachima formerly tjstrf 14:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not specifically tokusatsu, that I'm aware of -- the Japan Wikiproject seems to take care of them. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• There's WP:TOKU.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• So there is. Toss this puppy at them. They should be able to wash it up, give it a good grooming, tie a ribbon around its neck, and make it the cutest one in the window. Well, maybe not the last, but good enough to display there. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• How do you think I know of it? :P—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:15, 1 April 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. - Philippe 01:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Pseudo Miranda

Operation Pseudo Miranda (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a classic coatrack article, masquerading as a factual account of a large CIA operation (with a title pointing specifically to it) but in reality merely delivering the plot of the sole editor's book (verbatim). There is no other reference anywhere to "Operation Pseudo Miranda", and it appears to be entirely a construct of the author (as well as 3/4ths of his book title). There is only ONE other independent reference I could find on the book itself; it's from the Orange County Press and calls the book a likely hoax.[6] Still, it's selling on Amazon and I'm not begrudging the book it's notability, but this is a verifiably unacceptable coatrack and it needs to go. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 05:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I should add that the articles on both the book and the author have now been speedily deleted. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 07:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Why wasn't this taken care of along with the other two pages in the first place? --erachima formerly tjstrf 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete article on suspected hoax, with no Reliable Sources. Fake or not doesn't really matter, show the notable impact. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Article on author does not seem to have been speedily deleted (contra nominator), see Kenneth C. Bucchi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth C. Bucchi. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Very weak keep / merge. The hoax book itself is apparently notable (Google News test), but obviously the presentation in this article is an atrocity. Merge this and any other related articles to an article on the book, and make sure that article gives sufficient weight to the overwhelmingly likely explanation that this is all a fabrication. <eleland/talkedits> 22:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete G10 - article cites no reliable sources for verification and (hoax or not) appears to currently serve no other purpose but to disparage an organisation. Guest9999 (talk) 23:36, 31 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 --JForget 23:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Cappadona

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

Teenage guitarist. No reliable sources to confirm notability provided, and I couldn't find any. Prod tag and several maintenance tags were removed without explanation by an anon IP with five total edits, all relating to this subject. --Finngall ^talk 21:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. No albums, no labels, no tours, no coverage. Myspace and a user-submission site are the only references. Not accaptable per WP:RS. Anecdotal evidence also inadmissible. DarkAudit (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC - this is a puff piece. Pedro :  Chat  21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per DarkAudit -Drdisque (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Article is unsourced and appears to be promotional WP:OR, no notability established, and no coverage in secondary sources given. Cirt (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to work with the author of this article, however when I attempted to find further information on this person to establish notability... i could not find any, apparently he plays in his parents garage and at school talent shows, he played once at a local battle of the bands which was attended by about 10k people... in which he came in 10th place and received no award, not even an honourable mention. His only references are free sites such as myspace and musicnation both of which are user created, and have absolutely no requirements of being notable whatsoever. The reason for keeping this article is so people can find information on him and "get to know him", which can be accomplished in a myspace blog, or a personal website rather than a wikipedia article and is much more appropriate for an up and coming YOUNG artist (He is only 16). So i digest,

• 1. No notability any notability is a mere illusion
• 2. References refer to user created pages that do not establish notability
• 3. Any attempts to gather information to establish notability (Including my calling local stations and organizations in the area) failed, in fact most people i asked had no idea who he was and most thought i was prank calling them.
• 4. There is no reason to believe that anywhere in the near future the person that is the subject of this article will gain any substantial notability.
• 5. The information in this article is more appropriate of that of a webblog or a personal website.

In-case there is any confusion... I vote for the article Matt Cappadona To be deleted due to utter lack of everything that is needed to establish a valid Wikipedia article.

Cheers. AnnaJGrant (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn . Canley (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kenny Dies

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

Not an encyclopedic article, page contains nothing but a plot summary; no sources available. Dorftrottel (bait) 20:54, March 31, 2008 20:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep; I believe that certain South Park episodes were put up for AfD a while ago, and the result was keep. I stand by the same reasoning; all the episodes have the potential to become more than just plot summaries, and should you put this up for AfD, you'd have to put up about 80% of all other South Park episodes also. On a lesser note, I'd say that this episode is more relevant, as it contains a crucial plot line where one of the main characters dies, effecting the rest of the series. I would understand if it was another episode which was "little more than a plot summary" put up for AfD, but the events of this particular episode seem to make it more notable than most episodes. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that Kenny dies in every episode, right? —BradV 22:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if you've seen this episode and the one's that follow, you'll realise he actually does die in this, and is absent for many seasons afterwards until his later return. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I was able to find coverage in a quick news archive search and regular Google search also shows lots of hits to good sources that could be used in the article. A few of the reviews in secondary sources that came up were in Winston-Salem Journal, America's Intelligence Wire, and University Wire. Cirt (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Episode has been reviewed in multiple reliable sources and appears to be notable. I would imagine that most South Park episodes, given their shock factor alone, are probably the subject of multiple reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Update: Added some references, added a sourced Reception section, and a Further reading section and External links section. I'm sure that since I was able to find these sources relatively quickly that the episode has some additional coverage in other secondary sources as well. Cirt (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Consider it withdrawn by nom. I only wish AfD'ing wasn't necessary as an incentive to introduce sources which should be included on page creation. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 00:00, April 1, 2008

Frankly, I agree completely. It seems that the only reason any sources were added were to stop the deletion - they should be added, on any article, much sooner. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with expanding an article and adding sources to it while it is undergoing an WP:AfD discussion? Cirt (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. They just should be added before it reaches this stage. It is sort of ironic that the best way to get an article fixed is to bring it to AfD. See WP:HEY for an example. —BradV 00:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. WP:HEY is an interesting essay. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 1 April 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 --JForget 23:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eurocat (Air Traffic Control System)

Eurocat (Air Traffic Control System) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nothing to indicate that this product one-liner is a notable encyclopedic subject; no sources as usual. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Unsourced WP:OR, one-sentence article which does not assert notability or significant discussion in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Barely escapes db-nocontent. --BrucePodger (talk) 00:19, 4 April 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. Phoenix-wiki 11:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tonis Puri

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

Delete unsourced one-liner about a bread, nothing indicating that this bread is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as unsourced WP:OR, one sentence article, no assertion of notability or significant discussion in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I've added some sources. Surely part of a nation's staple diet has more notability than an episode of a TV series or a goth punk death metal band that has released two albums? I'm sure there are plenty more sources available in Georgian, but I'm afraid that all I can do with that language is admire the beauty of the script rather than understand a word of it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Phil Bridger. John254 23:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• 'Keep but the article need expanding. Cultural significance, history, etc... Otherwise, it falls under WP:DICT and should be deleted. Bardcom (talk) 01:16, 6 April 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. - Philippe 01:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leonczuk

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

Delete unsourced one-liner about a surname with nothing to indicate why it's notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - no assertion of notability. Camillus (talk) 22:21, 31 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. Black Kite 23:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Pete Plan

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

Unremarkable training plan for rowers. Can find no references in reliable sources and only reference in the article (since removed) was a blog. nancy ^(talk) 20:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable exercise plan. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 21:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - there should be a speedy cat for tosh like this. – ukexpat (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable enough. Maybe until it gets more famous. Just delete it for now.

O—— The Unknown Hitchhiker 22:30, 31 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. Black Kite 23:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Earl

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

Delete bit part actress, nn, fails WP:BIO, sourced only to imdb which is not a reliable source Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom
• Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:20, 6 April 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 with no prejudice to recreation should they become notable later on - currently fails WP:BAND. Black Kite 23:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shatter My World

Shatter My World (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

De-proded by author. It doesn't appear that this band passes WP:BAND muster. "Shatter My World" band produces ~590 Ghits (52 unique)--and the highly specific search "Shatter My World" Wilczynsky hits only this Wikipedia article. The indie label that they're apparently signed to, Zoo Music Incorporated, isn't of any note Zoo Entertainment, is apparently of note, but being signed is hardly enough to meet WP:BAND; the single example of external coverage, an article in a local weekly altmag, isn't enough to justify an article here. — Scientizzle 20:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:MUS. Note to aricle creator: since the band is signed, it has the potential to pass notability guidelines later on. Just wait till they release a few albums and have a nationwide tour and such. ~EdGl 22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:00, 1 April 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). Sole delete comment was "per nom" and notability clearly established since nomination, meeting the Heymann Standard. Skomorokh 02:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Moffat

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

Delete no sources showing that this playright or his plays are notable, so nn we don't know when or where he was born, whether he is still alive, or even what country he's from. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Nabokov's Gloves received some attention at the time (1998). [7] He's also a TV writer and the creator of more than one TV program(me) in the UK.[8] There are a few sources in conjunction with individual series. He's a former barrister e.g.. --Dhartung | Talk 20:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as creator of television series Kavanagh QC and North Square, and winner of the Writer's Award for the Broadcasting Press Guild. --Canley (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Sources have now been added showing this individual is clearly notable. --Canley (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I find it strange that the nominator managed to miss those sources in the research which he/she did before nomination.. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 2 April 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. - Philippe 01:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enfeebled Earth

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

Non notable demo tape. Was never properly released, sourcing is poor (questionable ezine and a mirror). Prod was removed with the comment "by a pioneer in the genre, should stay regardless". Dark Tranquility are a pretty significant band, but that doesn't mean that this is anything more than trivia. J Milburn (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Just a demo tape, hasn't been covered in any reliable sources and is likely very hard to verify. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:Music#Albums. Info could be merged into an expansion of the Demos section of the artist's page. Gwguffey (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - fails notability guidelines. Macy (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. As the original prodder, I still don't see how this meets WP:MUSIC. Obviously did not have huge sales if only 100 copies made; no evidence of charting; no professional reviews found at metacritic. Best to merge into Dark_Tranquillity#Demos.--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable and probably non-verifiable through WP:RS. SWik78 (talk) 20:15, 1 April 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. - Philippe 01:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ocean Drive (album)

Ocean Drive (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased album with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Article can be re-created if and when album is actually released. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It may have produced two chart singles, but that doesn't mean it's notable yet -- in part due to the fact that it's not yet been released. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Currently fails WP:CRYSTAL (and is a bit heavy on nonfree images). It can be recreated when released. Bláthnaid 20:18, 31 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 --JForget 23:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Studio Center

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

Questionable notability tag up since April, COI tag doesn't help either. Procedural nom, I have no opinion on the article. Wizardman 20:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - It was created by User:Chriswhite0 who is presumably the same Chris White who works for the company, and has been edited by User:StudioCenterAcct, which appears be affiliated with the company as well. Most of the sources are company press releases and the article has a promotional tone. I think this article should have been speedily deleted as spam as it needs a fundamental rewrite to be made encyclopedic. Jfire (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:CORP. Only sources are press releases. Not acceptable per WP:RS. No reliable, verifiable independent coverage of the subject. DarkAudit (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - little more than an advert as it stands. Deb (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Lacks independent reliable sources. --Stormbay (talk) 16:47, 5 April 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. Black Kite 23:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edwin Turney

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

Questionable notability tag up since April, no improvements made since. Procedural nom, I have no opinion on the article. Wizardman 20:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What is a "procedural nom"? The idea of AfD is that you should nominate articles that you think should be deleted. No reason for deletion has been given by the nominator so there is no reason why this AfD should be pursued. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I move to have the article deleted since the question of notability has not been answered. Wizardman 20:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of hostility lately to AFDs as a way of having a notability discussion. Personally, I'm willing to consider a good-faith procedural nom. --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. There isn't a whole lot out there about him besides the potted (commissioned?) company history (the same guy has written e.g. The Legend of Halliburton among similar titles). On the other hand, founders of major companies have frequently been kept. --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. A search turns up nothing of relevance. The articles in the external links section only mention the subject in passing. If the subject was notable we should be able to find something. —BradV 21:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. It looks like he's usually called "Ed" rather than "Edwin". This search finds more. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Three book sources have been provided in the article. Even if one of those is an AMD commissioned book it still leaves enough for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as one of the small group of founders of AMD, he;s notable--as for any similar very important company. Unjustified notability tag--better to have removed it than to sent it to AfD. DGG (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to AMD, unless significant coverage in reliable sources -- the primary notability criterion -- are located. The best sources put forth so far are three books. You can search inside two of these books on Amazon.com. In the first, The Spirit of AMD, the word "Turney" appears on 19 pages. 11 of those pages are simply captions reading "Photo courtesy of Ed Turney". The others are the index and back matter, and four other pages (listed in the index), all of which are brief mentions or photo captions. In other words, there is no significant coverage of Turney in this book. The Making of Silicon Valley contains one reference to Turney, a passing mention in a list of AMD founders. Again, clearly not significant coverage. I can't search inside Inside Intel, but since it's not even about AMD I think it's safe to guess it doesn't have significant coverage either. Unless web searches on "Ed Turney" turn up something new, I have to say this article simply fails our notability guidelines. Jfire (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to have sufficient notability. --Stormbay (talk) 21:15, 2 April 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; without prejudice against recreation if notability is proven. - Philippe 02:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AWISSENET

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

No assertion of notability; google news search yields 0 hits; google web search only 154 hits. Contested prod, with no reason given to keep article. Comment on original prod by User:Atama adds: "This is apparently a rather obscure project. The actual importance of this is not established, and the fact that it has been largely ignored by reliable sources shows that at least at this stage it's nothing worth having an article about." [9] -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 19:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 21:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if the concerns are related to the fact that the project is rather obscure then I can certainly improve that by elaborating on the objectives that the project deals with so that things becomes more clear.
Regarding the comment that google search has a small number of hits I think that this will improve over time since project's results will become available. I wonder though what is a sufficient number of hits that will justify retaining an entry in wikipedia (AWISSENET has been created middle of February and by then the google search hits are constantly increased)?
Since I am quite new in the wikipedia community (not as a user but in submitting articles I would like also a clarification regarding the categorization of my article as orphaned. The explanation mentions that I can improve this by creating links to the article but does it mean from other wikipedia pages (AWISSENET is an acronym and surely it is related to many concepts with related articles in Wikipedia), from external entities or both?Nprigour (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:57, 5 April 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. - Philippe 02:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duniya Vijay

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

Non-notable and reads like an ad. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete due to failing to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NN and badly written Dreamspy (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:03, 1 April 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 22:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geosign

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

Only has two references, both dating to its creation; any company gets that press, and none has been seen since. The page has functioned mostly as an advertising platform for the websites this company owns. Its own website seems to be gone. Tb (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Company doesn't seem to have been particularly notable during its existence, and seems to have gone under beginning sometime last year (sorta confirmed by Alexa). --Dhartung | Talk 21:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability does not expire. If the company was notable a year ago, it is notable today. I added some newspaper articles as references which offer a clearer idea about what happened to the company. But any company which has $160 million invested in it is notable. --Eastmain (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's true that "notability does not expire". It was, it seems to me, a flash in the pan. Even the new references show that it was notable a year ago, and now it's all but closed up shop. Even its own website is broken. I'm happy you found some more references--those are only helpful--but they seem to cement the case in my opinion. The company wasn't particularly notable to begin with, and now it's essentially dead. Notability consisted of two things: it was founded, and it died. Tb (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Article has been brought up to weak keep. I don't know that other sources will ever appear, but this is just enough to show that it was briefly notable. --Dhartung | Talk 03:44, 3 April 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 --JForget 23:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lucy Lamode

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

The subject is not notable. There is no article at Killer Pussy, her band or Teenage Enema Nurses her "smash hit". Captain panda 19:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy and Salt This article has been A7'd at least once, if not more. DarkAudit (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  There was a speedy tag on the article previously, but it has been since removed. Otherwise, I would have speedy tagged. Captain panda 19:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  Hi. I'm the one who removed that tag. Notability is asserted, and a quick Google search turns up an article saying "she once reigned as front woman of Killer Pussy, Phoenix's fave '80s punk band." That was close enough to WP:BAND's "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city", that I wasn't comfortable speedying it. William Pietri (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  I disagree. (Circle gets the square.) Just saying that they were Phoenix' favorite '80s punk band without a source -- at least in my book -- isn't really an assertation of notability unless it's sourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  I'm not talking about just tagged, but tagged, deleted, and recreated multiple times today. DarkAudit (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  I understand there has to be a source, which is why I said I found it in an article. this one, which I also put on the article talk page. That still may not be enough for WP:BAND, and I don't have an opinion on keeping the article. I'm just explaining why I declined the speedy deletion request. William Pietri (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Speedy declined (by me) Let's just sort it out here. For what it's worth I found nothing on a brief look that vaguely supports our notability criteria. It's pretty much a G11 puff piece. I say delete but let's run the AFD on this. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. zippo on AllMusic (Killer Pussy does have a handful of credits, but nothing suggesting WP:MUSIC would be passed). Not an A7, but not notable either. Seems like it needs WP:SALT?--Dhartung | Talk 21:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. There's no reason to keep going through this over and over again. Qworty (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and WP:SALT.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I've cleaned it up a bit, although I don't expect that will change anyone's opinion. No opinion about whether it should be kept or no, but I do think the article is one of those that is going to suffer from the fact that the internet only really covers info from the last 10 years or so. -- Naerii 01:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• In fact keep though I'm fighting against the tide, per WP:MUSIC: "has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city". Phoenix New Times called them "Phoenix's fave '80s punk band" and the sources I've added to the article seem to verify that they were indeed significant in terms of the punk scene in that area in the eighties. -- Naerii 01:58, 5 April 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. Phoenix-wiki 11:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opqrst

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

Non notable nemonic that is not world wide/country wide/industry wide - or of importance to wikipedia Brentoli (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Well known and widely accepted. --Arcadian (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Article is now referenced. --Dhartung | Talk 21:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Agree with it being non-notable. If this is notable, why not include every other mnemonic ever invented? I don't think that "Hot T-BonE steAk (Interleukin mnemonic) deserves a Wikipage.JPINFV (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Indeed. As long as a mnemonic is notable I see no reason we cannot have an article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable."

I guess the question then, is, are sources that are teaching assessment enough to be considered independent? It would be one thing if it was a common mnemonic (by common, I mean common in public, a la A-B-C), but I don't feel that this is the case with most of the assessment mnemonics. I think the most damning evidence is the fact that, in over a year and a half since the articles inception, the page only has one article linking to it, History of the present illness (which itself only has 4 pages linking to it, OPQRST). If it was notable, wouldn't there be more links to it?JPINFV (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to judge an article's notability on the basis of how many Wikipedia articles link to it. That's what {{orphan}} is for. And I really don't know where this "sources that are teaching assessment" comes into WP:RS. People that know the subject are not now considered reliable? --Dhartung | Talk 01:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't citing reliable sources, but notability. Hence my direct quote from the notability page. I don't think that things like OPQRST have received enough coverage that is independent of the subject (assessment text books, in this case, are not independent of the subject) that it is notable. -JPINFV (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Transwiki to wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary but this information could be useful there. Captain panda 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems notable enough, with dozens of hits in Google books and Google Scholar. I don't buy the argument that assessment books and articles are not "independent of the subject". By subject, in that guideline, I read a person or organization, not a topic. Otherwise we could not use music books for notability of music terms, or chemistry books for notability of chemistry topics! --Itub (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep With the references added, the article should pass muster. Because this is mnemonic specifically taught to people to remember a specific sequence of procedures (or, if not a sequence, to ensure completeness), it stands above those "pass the exam" mnemonics such as those for planets, star types, music notes, etc. In that regard, it most certainly is notable. Mandsford (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a valuable Emergency Medical Services mnemonic. I'll see if I can't do a couple quick improves to demonstrate this. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 5 April 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. - Philippe 02:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bratspiess

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

Delete unsourced one-liner on a surname without any indication why this surname is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Bardcom (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:31, 6 April 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 06:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Don't Feed The Animals

This page has no references, nor could I find any sources when I researched for some. Y5nthon5a (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a "single" on the album, and I found it, but Gorilla Zoe recently released a single from his last album Welcome to the Zoo. I really don't think he'd start releasing singles for his new album is he's still focusing on his last album.Y5nthon5a (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:CRYSTAL.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Yup, I can't verify anything, therefore, until sources become available this gets classified as unsourced speculation. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Yamla (talk) 00:33, 5 April 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 speedily deleted (A7), for the second time in 16 minutes, by Wassupwestcoast. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shattered Time

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

Non notable per WP:BK. No sources per WP:RS ukexpat (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - now nominated for speedy as previously deleted per AfD. – ukexpat (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• As I stated in the discussion for the article, I am getting the sources and such set. I am not very good at creating new pages {as is probably pretty evident} thus why I'm sure the page looks rough and might have some red-links. If you (or anyone) is able to make it look better why I shore up the sources, that would be great. The Rypcord. 18:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. A novel called Shattered Time Benjamin D. Kline published in 2008 is not listed at amazon.com either under title or author. This not notable. Maybe hoax. Maybe self-published. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:48, 31 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 as G3. I have carried out thorough searches not only on various formulations of the name but also on formulations of the name of the suggested founder. I have found absolutely nothing. The article states that "The only varsity sport that N.N.U. offers is Male Wrestling"; I find this unlikely. It also claims that "The University is part of the Western Acredited Schools and Colleges". I have found no trace of this body; the nearest I can find is here and they have not accredited this University. I accept the point, made below, that sources may be available other than the internet, but for an article to survive it must meet WP:V and at present there is no basis for compliance with this policy. If reliable sources are subsequently produced then the article can be recreated. TerriersFan (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nolan negrete univeristy

Unverifiable. Possibly existent, but without sources does not deserve an article. Skomorokh 18:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, no sources, possible hoax. Stifle (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - the content seems unverifiable. Even a google search for the school's founder turned up unsuccessful and so seems to fail the notability critera for schools. AngelOfSadness talk 18:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I've just typed "Nolan negrete university" (in quotes) into Google and the Wikipedia article is the only result it throws up. I very much doubt the place exists, and think this is almost certainly a hoax. Paul20070 (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G3 Clearly a hoax university given the utter lack of verifiability -- you'd think a college would turn up something else than Wikipedia. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You are aware that there are other sources of information than the Internet? Don't you think your tagging reflects a lack of good faith in the article's creator? Skomorokh 20:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Not sure if it should be speedy deleted just yet, but according to, yes google [10], it cannot be found. Doesn't even correct the spelling. However, it's a possible WP:HOAX. Either way, it ain't notable. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:HOAX. Macy (talk) 21:23, 31 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 a1 (no content once unsourced content is deleted, which is all of it); also possibly fits under g3 (obvious hoax, see below). NawlinWiki (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shattered Time

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

No sources are given in the article and I can't find any results for the book on Google or Amazon, seems like it's a hoax or a non-notable book by a non-notable author. Guest9999 (talk) 18:16, 31 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 User:Paste is right, this got speedy deleted by User:Stifle just as the AfD opened. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jim van blaricum

Jim van blaricum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable businessman, fails WP:BIO. Paste (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• He's history, deleted by a speedy! Paste (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW and apparent joke nomination. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 01:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William Connolley

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

NN WP:BIOgraphy: just some scientist. His only claim to fame is that he contributes to WP and the like. Note also that his buddy Ed Poor authored the article. April Regina (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep this is now the 5th AfD on this article - and most of the rationale seems to have been "he is a wikipedian". Nothing has changed since then (except that the article has improved). Naming User:Ed Poor as WMC's "buddy" is rather funny though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO (namely WP:PROF). Represents non-notable academian. Being on a fairly popular blog is not something I see in the criteria. Not regarded as significant in his field (climate research or software engineer). Published research is not "well-known," given the lackluster citations from other academics. Has not contributed body of works or concepts that have been particularly meaningful to climate research or software engineering. Lacks notable awards or honors. The only real claim of support I've seen is "he's my friend" or "he's an expert on Wikipedia" or "ex-member of blog." People who point to previous AFDs refrain from discussing the issues of any relevance or importance. ~ UBeR (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notabilty seems to be established. Dreamspy (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Do people talk about him? Yes. Has he published stuff of academic note? Yes. Does he spell his last name funny? Yes, but lets not hold that against him. Nick Connolly (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. The result of the fourth nomination was speedy keep in accordance with WP:SNOW. It is not the case that the previous AfDs had insufficient community participation to say that there is clear consensus on this matter. Nothing new is offered in this nomination that was not addressed and disposed of already. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 19:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - This isn't really questionable for me, he's not just some academic - meets WP:PROF. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Look, if you're nominating an article for the 5th or 6th time, you've got to present some new reasons it should be deleted. The old ones repeated here have been decisively rejected quite a few times, so this looks like AfD roulette. Also, the fact that this AfD nom is the nominating account's first contribution of substance to Wikipedia (other than a bit of history-padding back in October) is a huge red flag. MastCell ^Talk 20:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete It does not look like he has made a sufficiently big impact within academia itself. GoogleScholar gives only two highly cited papers, with several co-authors, (citation hits 68, 64) and after that the citation rates drop precipitously. His H-index appears to be fairly low, only 7 per GoogleScholar search. There is some coverage of him in mainstream press in relation to climate change controversies, but I found only a few such newsarticles and he is not covered by them in substantial detail but rather in passing (the Nature and the New Yorker articles are mentioned in his WP article, but I also found a few more by doing GoogleNews search). It certainly does not appear that his opinions on the issue of climate change are quoted regularly in the mainstream press. So he does not seem to satisfy either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Absent some new information, I think the article should be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  I get the h-index to 15 (with publish&perish), using W.M. Connolley - the name is sufficiently unique that it doesn't get false positives. (and i did check ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. I am changing my vote to Unsure. I'd like to hear from some-one familiar with the climatology/climate modeling field about what whould be considered a high citation rate there. Nsk92 (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Scopus gives him a h-index of 11.Nick Connolly (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, per Kim and Mastcell. Also, the peculiar contribution history of the nominator doesn't inspire a good faith assumption from me either -in this, the 5th instance of this article's nom for deletion. Dubiously, R. Baley (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Nominators name and the date in her claimed location suggests this nomination was not meant seriously.Nick Connolly (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

missed that one. good enough justification for a speedy keep. DGG (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep; we've been over this before, and he still seems to be notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. Fabrictramp (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aldo Franchi

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

Appears that the gentleman drove in just one race. Google hits appear to show just this same information in various forms. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 13:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per WP:Bio#Athletes. Playing in a single MLB or NFL game satisfies notability, I'd think a single Indy 500 would do the same. That said it'd be nice to have more then a single line.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• According to [11] and [12] he didn't just race at Indianapolis in 1916 but also in another three races that year, including one )at Omaha) where he was involved in an accident that killed his mechanic. It looks as if he passes WP:Bio#Athletes - therefore Keep.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Meets WP:Bio#Athletes with the references above from Nigel Ish.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment My fault, I didn't know the Bio Athlete guideline...can we go speedy keep and I'll go read more... LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete - This is a WP:Neologism, the only reference provided to the article name is to an unreliable source. Interestingly this article was previously deleted via a WP:PROD in September 2006 as a WP:Neologism for an entirely different usage of the term (Anthrosexual = attracted to men). Although the history of Greek sexuality is notable, it is covered, or should be, elsewhere and lends no support to the usage as the term was never used by the Greeks and there are no reliable sources provided where this is used to refer to Greek sexual beliefs. Although Google searches are great, contrary to the creator's assertions it's the contributor's responsibility to source his or her contributions not the community's to research outside the references provided; furthermore, a Google search provides only unreliable sources, including numerous blog results which beyond being unreliable indicate a lack of an accepted definition of the term. Additionally, identifying this as a peculiar phenomenon is WP:OR absent reliable sources. If the Greek history sources were removed, the only remaining sources relate to homosexuality and two references of questionable notability where notable persons have identified themselves as of undefined sexuality but without any explanation in the references to what that means to them.
Procedural history: this article was created with the title Undefined sexuality on 2008-03-27, tagged for CSD#A1 by User:Undead warrior here and CSD declined by User:Victao_lopes. The article was then proded by User:Undead warrior per WP:NEO and WP:N with this edit; Prod removed by the creator here, and was nominated for AfD on 2008-03-28 by User:Undead warrior with this edit. On 2008-03-30 the article was moved by User:Cooljuno411 to Unidentified sexuality with this edit. The article was then copy-pasted back to Undefined sexuality with this edit, AfD tag and all. On 2008-03-30, User:Cooljuno411 moved the article to Anthrosexual with this edit and removed the AfD tags from the article with this edit; User:Undead warrior replaced the AfD tags here resulting in a new date. Although this article remains the subject of a 2008-03-28 nomination notwithstanding the date on the current tag, it has been five days since the tag was replaced, nonetheless. (BTW, although unrelated to this decision, this was improperly partially closed by User:Cooljuno411 with this edit which made closing a pain as I searched for where {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} had gone, so this was not categorized for the last few days). I note all of this because 1) I needed to sort it all out for myself, and 2) in case there is a DRV, due to the cut and paste, the article Unidentified sexuality contains history related to this article which would need to be restored and the histories merged if this article is ever undeleted. Unidentified sexuality and Undefined sexuality are both being deleted per CSD#R1. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Post closing note: While deleting articles and redirects, I additionally identified the page Anthrosexuality which was changed to a redirect to Pansexuality in Oct 2006 and which User:Cooljuno411 changed to a redirect to Anthrosexual. Because there was discussion and consensus in 2006 to have this redirect to Pansexuality, I have reverted to that version rather than deleting the redirect.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undefined sexuality Note: this article has been retitled: Anthrosexual

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

PROD tag was taken off, but notability is still not asserted. The one source cited is a dictionary. I think that the information is trivial, and online searches, both Google and Yahoo, yield a wide variety of strange topics, but none of them cover Undefined Sexuality. Delete under WP:N. Undeath (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep: Article does not assert notability, but it may have potential. The Google and Yahoo! Searchs really take us to strange and/or unrelated links. I think we should remove most of the unsourced and irrelevant content, no matter how small the remains of the article will be. Merging to a related article also sounds great. Victao lopes (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I'd suggest a merge/redirect to Asexuality (I suppose Bisexuality would be better), but this article's title "Undefined sexuality" seems an unlikely search term. I see no evidence of "Undefined sexuality" used in the sexology literature, and very little in the non-RS blogosphere etc, at least not in the sense used in the lead section. This article has one paragraph in the body, and I really don't see how its related to the material in the lead. There's no WP:RS, and I've looked for WP:V, and find none, which makes this look like WP:OR. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Is bisexuality and asexuality the same thing? No, neither is this.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Asexuality - not notable enough for its own article but what can be sourced should be merged into the Sexuality or Asexuality article--Cailil ^talk 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Asexuality is NO sexual desire or attraction. This is an undefined sexuality. Did you even read the article or doing any background research on this topic before you posted? For future reference, you are supposed to read the article and do major background research before you voice your opinion on deleting an article.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Ancient Greek sexuality is clearly a notable topic (we have, more narrowly, Ancient Greek eros and Pederasty in ancient Greece). But interpreting it as an example of a cross-cultural sexual category is original research, and the term "undefined sexuality" seems to be a neologism. EALacey (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Bisexuality. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a form of Bisexuality, did you even read the article or do any background research on the topic before you posted here? --Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete no encyclopedic content. That does not mean that a proper sourced article could not be writen on the subject. DGG (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty reffed. to me. And besides, your supposed to do background research on a topic before you post an opinion on deleting it. Did you even go to google? Cause if you did you could find many things on this topic.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per DGG. Also insufficient references. Stifle (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, can you please link to that, when i search DRG, i find a disambiguation with no wiki guideline article--Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Important to history and today. The Ancient Greeks are a perfect example, see article. Not to merge with Bisexuality because it is like mac and windows, both OS but have different rules and bases. And is not a form of Asexuality, it is how sexuality was contemplated in the ancient and more recently in the modern ages.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that User:Cooljuno411 is the article's creator. Also, to Cooljuno, comparing this article to bisexuality is nothing near like comparing Mac to Windows. Anyway, you only provided the one source for the article. It fails WP:V in that aspect. Undeath (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have provided additional sources. And for your future knowledge, you only have the right to speak your opinion about deleting an article if you do your own back ground research as well. And i don't know about you, but when i hit google i founds lots of things of this subject.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Remain civil when discussing AfD debates. Your comment, above, was very un-civil. And for the record, I did many google searches on this subject, and when I come up with things like the Urban Dictionary or other various non notable online sites, I nominate it. This term is non notable for it's own article. Being merged is the best option for it, other than delete. Undeath (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

*Keep and rename-to somthing more in line with a term in actual use for this demographic such as "unsure sexual orientation" or "questioning" or "anthrosexual" —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewAtThis (talk • contribs) 10:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

After a quick google search, I agree that the article should be renamed to anthrosexual, and i will do so, thanks. I knew this concept wasn't new, or "neologism" or whatever, but i just couldn't get a name on the concept so i just titled the "undefined sexuality" but you have proven the power of wikipedia, that sharing knowledge is a great tool. AND TO ALL YOU PEOPLE WHO JUST SIMPLY SLAPPED A NEOLOGISM ON IT, maybe you should of did a quick google search too, cause its obvious you didn't. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - not sure that masters being screwed by their slaves is mentioned elsewhere. Maybe a rename to something like Sexually Deviancy In Ancient Society, if not keep then aim to merge. -- BpEps - t@lk 11:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note the article was moved to Anthrosexual at this point.

Resolved. The article was renamed to anthrosexual. And for future reference, please do research before claiming WP:N because this case proved that many don't. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: This AFD remains open until April 2, per the usual five-day rule. Stifle (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete UrbanDictionary.com does not establish notability. Fireplace (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I will add additional refs. but for your future knowledge, if you are going to post here you are supposed to do your own background research as well. So please don't base your opinion on one ref. and also, why should it be deleted? I don't claim a sexuality, so that would make me a living reference. And others don't either, so why should the article be deleted? Not everything has to fall into the western culture fashion of hetero,homo, and bi-sexual.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Google Scholar turns up not a single hit on this term. I conclude, therefore, this is a neologism and it should be deleted forthwith as such. Eusebeus (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that chat rooms, online groups, and other organizations that have been formed around Anthrosexuality is a good enough RS for me. By deleting this article, we are simply denying it existence, but we have to own up to it, it does exist, and i don't think we have the right to deny its existence just because it doesn't turn up a search in google scholar. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if this doesn't exist, then please tell me how sexuality was highly practiced in the ancient world especially in ancient Greece? Lets see, a system of passive and active, which is a form of athrosexuality because they do not claim a sexual orientation. You know the term homosexual and heterosexual were invented less then 200 years ago. Did google scholar tell you that? In addition, if i claim this would it be true? if others do wouldn't it be true? It's the 21st century, people don't have to choose one of the three common sexualities placed in front of us, when can chooce to be like many ancient cultures and not claim an orientation and simply go with what feels right.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

CoolJuno411. This is the last warning to remain civil. Your comments are becoming more and more offensive and disruptive. Please stop making sarcastic comments directed at other users. Undeath (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that i offended you. But i think i have every right to questions peoples motives on why they made that opinion. People should place opinion and reason for opinion. I only reply to people who do not completely justify their answers.

They do justify their answers, you just do not always understand their justification. Don't badger the other users. Undeath (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please ref. where i do not "understand their justification", when i respond i am generally telling them that their justification is insufficient and that they need to go into more detail why. Or i have been asking if they even read the article, because saying this is a form of asexuality or bisexuality, which has been the two most common suggestions, just makes me think that person hasn't even read the first 2 words of the article or even googled the term.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, there you go. "...that person hasn't even read the first 2 words of the article or even googled the term". Just because they state something that may seem vague to you, does not mean that they did not do any research. Most AfD debates will have a simple delete with a simple explanation. Having the article's creator badger them over it is bad, and it also shows a bit of article ownership. Undeath (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I said it "makes me think that person hasn't even read the first 2 words of the article..." and if people have the "right" to say it is a form of asexuality, then i should have just as much right to think that they didn't read the article and question their motives on their answer. And i don't have a sense of article ownership i am try to protect a legitimate article form being wrongfully deleted by people who i think haven't even read or researched the article. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm done arguing this with you. Just stop attacking other users on wikipedia. Let the course of AfD take it's own route. Undeath (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to a section in either Sexual orientation or History of human sexuality. This term is in use, but not commonly enough to merit its own article at the moment. Delete section 'Anthrosexual and Undefined sexuality in popular culture' since there is no evidence that the examples given use the word "anthrosexual". David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. It appears to be in moderate use, but the mentions I've read through google seem contradictory to its exact definition, and at least one does call it a neologism. Any article that relies on a LiveJournal definition as its primary cite has problems, and it would appear that much of the article are the opinions of the page creator, who has decided which definitions she/he likes, and which are "confused". Perhaps this doesn't belong on Wikipedia until a more authoritative definition can be sourced. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please ref. sites that have a different def. please, i would like to see them.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• comment I'm continuing to endorse deletion. The term "Anthrosexual‎" turns up zero hits on ISI, which indexes Archives of Sexual Behavior, Journal of Sex Research, etc.. This term seems unknown to science, there is no evidence that this term is used by sexologists. More relevant to WP:N, I see no evidence of the extensive use in reliable secondary sources required to meet the criterion of WP:N. Pete.Hurd (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Question: What about Pansexuality? From where I'm coming, that seems to be do the most similar thing to what the article describes. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

BUt there is a major difference that does not allow them to be similar. Pansexual is an active sexuality, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Anthrosexuality is an unclaimed sexuality. See article for more information, there is a whole sub portion on the difference between the two.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The subsection you added yesterday has no references, it's hard to evaluate the supposed difference between these two topics on the basis of a section that appears to be WP:OR. Your concept of "active sexuality" seems quite different from the examples that turn up in the first few pages of hits on Google Scholar, and appears -like this article- to be Original Research. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge into Pansexuality, which also deprioritizes gender. It says, "Gender doesn't matter much - therefore we can be attracted to any and all genders" whereas Anthrosexuality, if I am to believe CoolJuno, says "Gender doesn't matter much - therefore we are not particularly attracted to any or all genders." So it just inverts the same meaning, which perhaps was what CoolJuno meant by it not being active. Even if it is merged, however, the content needs serious work. It seems to contain sections which have no inherent value, and are just uncited responses to the discussion on this talk page. I thing the whole thing could be boiled down to a sentence in Pansexuality. --99.231.118.172 (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• There's a problem with "if I am to believe CoolJuno", and "perhaps was what CoolJuno meant by", which is that an encyclopedia is supposed to be a compendium of reliable information, not a compendium of CoolJuno's opinions. Without reliable sources to document the veracity of the claims made in this article, the article is worthless.

Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree completely, Pete.Hurd. I wasn't intending to defend the article's validity, nor CoolJuno's authorship - I think it's pretty apparent that they aren't acceptable for Wikipedia - but to clarify my proposal of a parenthetical sort of inclusion of it in Pansexuality, saying "some individuals self-identify as anthrosexual, which may be a similar construct"...a little like we've done with omnisexual, which is treated as synonymous. That said, I understand the argument to be had in waiting for anthrosexuality to be documented in reliable sources before including it in anything, period. I've been in the mindset of giving it a mention, because it cropped up in the pansexuality article - in the form of a disambiguation note saying "not to be confused with anthrosexuality" at the top. As a result, I was under the mistaken impression that anthro had more of a general presence on wikipedia - until about 2 minutes ago, when I just checked and realized it was CoolJuno who added it. --99.231.118.172 (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Absolutely fails to satisfy WP:N let alone a stronger standard of WP:V/WP:RS. Putting Livejournal as a source in the first paragraph was a nice touch, though. --Dhartung | Talk 21:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, article does not cite reliable sources that actually speak to the existence of this term and concept. WillOakland (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Although the fluidity of sexual roles in Greek and Roman cultures is reasonably well documented, the use of the terms "undefined sexuality" and/or "anthrosexual" to describe this phenomenon is not. (LiveJournal community profiles are about as far from reliable sources as you can get.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to sexual orientation or pansexual. --Alynna (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Zetawoof. We've got a concept, exemplified by but not limited to, Greek and Roman understandings of sexaulity, that was actually pretty common in a number of cultures until recent centuries (see, especially, Michel Foucault's The History of Sexuality which deals with this concept in detail). The problem is that it doesn't have a name. CoolJuno has gone and made two titles for this Wikipedia article which return very few hits, and the only refs that can be found are non RS. So we're seeing (understandably), a pile of delete !votes. I'd ask others to reconsider, given that this is a genuine concept, which was synonymous with Greek sexuality (but not limited to these - Venn diagrams would be nice to demonstrate this). Definitely do not merge to pansexual or sexual orientation, which are separate subjects. I suggest that CoolJuno accepts a delete (which will be the likely outcome of this AfD), moves this to userspace, and finds more references, starting with Foucault. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I think it is important to get an opinion from someone who belongs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality and Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have messaged the users who currently belong to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, if for some reason this AfD is about to end soon, please allow the people who specialize on these subjects to have time to voice their opinion. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Instead of messaging over 30 people about this AfD, it would probably be best (and save you time) to post a topic at WT:SEX. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality I reviewed this article as well as the current Wikipedia article for pansexuality as well as doing a google search on the topic. Generally, I feel this term is ill-defined. Just when I thought I understood its meaning the Urban Dictionary article on the topic turned my understanding up on its head. There seems to be a confusion and conflation between the terms "gender" and "sexual orientation" between the anthrosexual entries themselves. It is true that there is a history to the creation of what we know as "sexual orientation," and particularly of people not assigning meaning to their sex acts under the rubric of an identity or orientation. One needn't go back so far as ancient Greece for the evidence. You can find references to this in Chauncey's book Gay New York going back to the not so distant past. However, 1) as this viewpoint of defining one's sexuality by sex acts rather than orientation was never a phenomenon that was historically and particularly named (par for course considering what we are discussing, yes? In this sense the term "Undefined sexuality" is actually more appropriate.) And 2) The term does not seem to have a definition that is currently used and understood by those in the field of sexuality. I feel that the *information* raised here should be moved to a different article if it hasn't already been highlighted elsewhere. Perhaps if appropriate with a note that an emerging term with small usage, "anthrosexual" is beginning to emerge in pop culture to describe this way of viewing sex. As it is, this article seems to be more of the beginning of the creation and legitimization of a term rather than the definition of a term that is already understood. Also the definition given is a quote on the users page and the definition is a Livejournal article. This does not suffice as references. Links to recognized organizations, activism and social movements, terminology used in sexuality documents, academia or other verifiable research, would be convincing. That is my opinion as of now. I will return if there are any amendments.--NoMonaLisa (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete References such as LiveJournal, other WP articles, and a movie review on a blog are not RS. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: If this is indeed the technical definition for this type of sexuality (or lack thereof) - considering that the dictionary reference pans out - then the article is worth keeping. However, it definitely needs to be expanded, and more detailed sourcing is a must. Also, a good portion of the material relating to Ancient Greece and Rome doesn't seem to belong there, and likely needs to be cut. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep as stub - it looks like this concept does exist, but right now the sourcing is atrocious. One of the "references" is Cooljuno's userspace. As others have pointed out, blogs are not considered reliable sources either. This should be turned into a stub and then rebuilt using real sources. Aleta ^Sing 12:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Clearly this is an academic term and clearly it is new. Fine. No problem there. But it must be sourced from academic sources or other highly credible sources such as New Society. Otherwise it's just somebody's internet theorizing. This is no place for Original Reseach. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - without prejudice for recreation if notability can be established as per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY. John Carter (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Neither Google-news nor Google-scholar returned any hits for the term anthrosexual. Aleta ^Sing 14:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No scholarly sources found in journal databases.-Wafulz (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE EVER KEEP, this is an encyclopedic article that should be included here. Concept exists (see above). Dusti^{talk to me} 18:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Question: With such a strong keep, can you give any sources to improve the article? It's sorely lacking in them right now. Aleta ^Sing 19:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- Aleta ^Sing 19:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: Whether notability exists or not, I feel that this article should exist because as long as people identify themselves as this; this article should exist. User:Lighthead ^þ 23:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment But it needs RS to exist on WP. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that chat rooms, online groups, and other organizations that have been formed around Anthrosexuality is a good enough RS for me. By deleting this article, we are simply denying it existence, but we have to own up to it, it does exist, and i don't think we have the right to deny its existence just because it doesn't turn up a search in google scholar. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well strictly speaking we do. Without proper sourcing of articles Wikipedia perpetuates something that might not be properly defined and thus becomes the source of other peoples definitions Self Perpetuation. I can't say strongly enough that Wikipedia just doesn't pre-empt scholarly debate. -- BpEps - t@lk 00:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Cooljuno, that comment indicates to me that you need to read and seriously consider WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS. Aleta ^Sing 01:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that whole paragraphs (if sections) need to be deleted for sure; but that's apart from deleting the whole article. User:Lighthead ^þ 03:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, possible merge Weak keep, possible merge: The subject does appear to exist, and as such I believe an article on the subject should exist as well, although the present article is obviously in need of some work. Is anyone here familiar with the Pomosexual article? That article could use some work as well, and seeing as they are both terms for people who choose not to identify with any particular sexual orientation I think a merge between the two articles might be in place. —Mears man (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing to light the article on Pomosexual, i can see these articles having a strong relation in the future. I also believe that this article helps debug the argument of a deleting Anthrosexual with the argument that it falls under as neologism. I don't know exactly if this word is a neologism, but i know indefinently that the concept of anthrosexaulity isn't anything new. I feel that this article has every right to be on this site, even if it is a neologism. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

But can you find some more reliable sources? I would love to see it stay - properly sourced that is, and blogs don't cut it. Aleta ^Sing 01:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Giving things another look, my position would probably be better defined as "weak keep", and I've changed it as such. There definitely seems to be historical evidence that the concept exists, and I'd hate to see the article go, but there just isn't a whole lot out there about the actual terms "Anthrosexual" and "Anthrosexuality". Because of this, it's going to be hard to confirm that the term itself actually describes the mindset being discussed. I've continued searching for references, but I'm just not finding much. If the article is deleted, hopefully someday there will be more published works about Anthrosexuality out there and the article could be recreated. —Mears man (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion at Non-western concepts of male sexuality about including perspectives of sexuality and sexual orientation that are outside the western, American Psychological Association-style mainstream. The discussion is currently focusing on, e.g., the Native American two-spirit phenomenon, but there's certainly room for a larger-scale (and well-sourced) discussion about incorporating alternative sexual concepts into WP's sexuality and LGBT articles. But a crappy stub of an article is not the best way to have that discussion. Fireplace (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - the article seems is largely held together by what appears to be original research with little in the way of encyclopaedic information beyond a dictionary definition of a neologism. The subject described by the term appears to be covered in several other related articles and any relevent encyclopaedic information (although I do not think there is currentky any in the article) could be transferred. If - as suggested above - Wikipedia were to have an article on everything that exists the project would be MySpace by the end of the month. Guest9999 (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not orig. research. Concept proven in ancient greeks. Did you even take a look at the article and read the history section?--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did read the article. Whilst there are bits which are sourced and may be factually accurate they largely do not directly related to the subject of the article and are likely covered elsewhere in other articles on sexuality and/or ancient history. Most of the sections which link all of the information together and with the article title are tagged as "citation needed" and without sourcing I think it is likely that this linking of the subject matter is original research. To me it seems like these sections are fundamental to the article. Guest9999 (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Mostly original research, and the only source that even defines the term is an online forum. No evidence that this term is more than a "proto-neologism." If we merged only the quality content in this article, there would be nothing to merge. Nick Graves (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not orig. research. Concept proven in ancient greeks. Did you even take a look at the article and read the history section?--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't assume that nobody has read the article. If I invent a concept called "frizzigiggy" and say it refers to the Ancient Greek practice of creating olive oil, that doesn't mean it's been "proven". Existence is not the same as verifiability or tertiary research.-Wafulz (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Cooljuno, people have read the article, and are making their critiques thereon. Even though some related ideas are discussed relative to the Greeks, there is nothing in the article that shows that "anthrosexual" is used to describe the situation in the Greeks. For you to combine the two ideas constitutes synthesis, which is considered a form of original research, and not allowed on WP. Aleta ^Sing 03:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - House of Scandal (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to share why you feel the article should be deleted? —Mears man (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't going to, but since you asked, I advocate deletion per almost all of the above comments. While I don’t necessarily doubt the existence of the phenomenon described in this article, it is not verifiably defined as "Anthrosexual" or "Undefined sexuality" to my satisfaction. The meat of this article is original research. The article seems to be an attempt to coalesce ideas and attach them to these terms rather than showing that these terms are actually strongly associated with the concepts discussed or even that these concepts have been concretely identified. It is, in short, putting the cart before the horse. The most solid ideas in this article might already be found in History of human sexuality and other articles. I’ll add that although it’s not a factor in my vote, I feel that Cooljuno411 could better advance his or her viewpoint through the consistent use of a more polite tone. Few flies are caught with vinegar in AfD debates. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:06, 4 April 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 to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 02:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continental L/TSIO-360-RB

Continental L/TSIO-360-RB (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Whole page is just list! Normandiefawn (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It's an engine. That's all this article tells you. Not evident from the article, but it's used in the Piper Seneca airplane. What about the engine makes it important, relevant, or notable? Mere existence isn't really enough. DarkAudit (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep (although probably should be moved to Continental O-360 or Teledyne Continental to be more inclusive : Appears to be a relatively important aeroengine - according to [13] it has been in production since 1962 - which does represent a major production run - this needs fixing, not deleting.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:39, 31 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 22:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Human-centered computing (NASA)

Human-centered computing (NASA) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Very little information; notability unclear; no refs; orphaned. MaxVeers (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Rapid keep. No brainer. Goog on "Human-Centered Computing" nasa throws up good secondary sources in the hundreds. Clearly notable and important. Halfmast (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It would seem that sources abound. The fact that an article is currently a stub isn't grounds for deletion. That fact that the article lacks references and is orphaned is a case for cleanup, not deletion. I'd gently suggest that the nom review the deletion policy. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Many things NASA does are in fact notable. This does not seem to be an exception. [14] --Firefly322 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: Plenty of references are available. [15] Below are some good references:
  • Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise, 2003, ISBN 0309090806
  • Handbook of Multisensor Data Fusion by David L. Hall and James Llinas, 2001, ISBN 0849323797

Why the nom did not check carefully if there are really references available or not. I smell disruption with this kind of irresponsible nomination. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:05, 4 April 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 (non-admin closure), author requested deletion TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 12:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Midwest Conference (Football)

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

I created this article before i knew that it already exsisted as Midwest Conference. They're the same article but i didn't knkow untill i found the other. Sorry. - hdxstunts1 8:57pm 2/29/08

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy eligible for {{db-author}} and tagged as such TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• The author also restored the content, so I don't think that it applies. I'll leave it to an admin to decide. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha, I was going by this nomination TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 00:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Gilbert_Public_Schools. - Philippe 02:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] South Valley Junior High

South Valley Junior High (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article does not even claim the school is notable, let alone give any reason why, or evidence. Zsero (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. —Zsero (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Zsero (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect or merge to Gilbert Public Schools, its school district, per WP:SCHOOL. Just one hitch: there is more than one "South Valley Junior High". Otherwise, no evidence of notability found. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect per Gene. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Gilbert Public Schools per established precedent. TerriersFan (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  Then what do we do about the one in Missouri? -- Zsero (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  I have created a DMB page South Valley Junior High School. TerriersFan (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gilbert Public Schools per WP:SCHOOLS TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:02, 31 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. - Philippe 02:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual-OS

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

Originally deleted as a PROD by myself, but restored and sent here per a request on my talk page. Virtual OS was deleted three times, and seems to be a spin-off of that article. A bit confusing, but I am not so sure this product is notable, and seems to be just a jumble. Jmlk17 07:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep: Virtual-OS ( virtual-os.com ) refers to an application being developed by Advanced Webhosting Network in Mississauga, Ontario with provincial approval and funding by the Region of Peel. To the best of my knowledge their 2008 release is still in closed beta despite their 1st quarter release projection. I can still access the active 2007 beta support forum at chat.virtual-os.com but there's no additional information about the 2008 beta other than it's only open to Twine users.

The article "Virtual OS" ( coreweb.virtualos.net.eu.org ) which is erroneously referred to in the PROD pertained to an unrelated project by Sin Com (Europe), although I'm assuming that it was discontinued due to trademark infringement regarding the actual application in question.

The Virtual-OS project asserts notability based on a highly publicized security breach in 2006 that spurred a wave of news reports in the Greater Toronto Area regarding "online information privacy" concerns which featured Virtual-OS as a prime example.

Side Note: Ironically, partial snippets of the 2008 "Vixen" source code seem to have been leaked already and can be found via Google, although an official distro package has not been released. http://www.google.ca/search?q=Virtual-OS+Vixen

99.229.222.154 (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• 99.229.222.154

is located in ontario[16] and seems to only comment on Virtual OS related topics, especially keeping wikipedia pages from being deleted.

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of notability. This software is still in development, only available to Twine users, only notable for one thing (and that a bad thing). Of course, this article could be re-created if and when the software gains notability in its own right... as long as the new article doesn't get anything like this tacked on. I don't think that's at all compatible with the GFDL. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: The original application use to be publicly available and can still be downloaded from unauthorized mirrors. It's alot like YouOS except you run it on your own server rather than using someone elses service. I also beta tested the closed 2007 revision which required sign up but it didn't have all the features of the original release. Notability wise it was reported on prime time news in Toronto and in the press. Good or bad, either way it seems to me to be significant in the timeline of events relating to remote desktop systems. 99.229.222.154 (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as spam. The disclaimer at the bottom of the article kind of gives it away. This belongs on your own website, not Wikipedia. —BradV 21:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I can find nothing that makes me think this software is notable: [17] - trivial stuff like answers.com, download.com, company website etc..etc.. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

GFDL Note: I believe the disclaimer that has since been removed in a rather odd flurry of recent edits/vandalism actually granted wikipedia the right/license to unlimited reuse of the Virtual-OS trademark to abide by GNU licensing schemes. 99.229.222.154 (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Search Result Note: The dual exact strings search used by Wisdom89 yield results limited to mentions of BOTH the actual developer and the application; where as queries such as "virtual-os" + "security breach" yield more relevant articles and broader queries such as "virtual os" (with or without quotations) shows that virtual-os.com is the top result above even the monolithic vmware.com and the application is also mentioned in several of the secondary top results out of 9,210,000 google hits for the term (141,000 exact string query). There's also related content indexed in MSN, Yahoo, DMOZ, etc. 99.229.222.154 (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per SNOW. No valid reason to delete and appears that there never will be. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Marsden

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

Marsden is not particularly notable - the article is more trouble than its worth, the site of constant drama and the subject wants it deleted. SuperVideoGameKid (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC) (categories)

• STRONG keep. Looking through the references, she seems quite notable to me. I don't really see something getting vandalism as a good reason to delete said something, which really seems like the only thing here. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Snowball keep - references establish notability on multiple grounds, several times over, beyond all reasonable doubt. The information is already in the public domain: the subject's desire to have it removed from Wikipedia does not carry any weight. Skomorokh 17:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• There seems to be a growing trend of "Please delete mah article" on AfDs these days... Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think thirteen minutes might be a bit quick for a snowball keep. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a prediction that this did this Afd did not have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding - it is the closing admin's decision when to judge the probability of that prediction's chances of being true is sufficiently high to close. Regards, Skomorokh 18:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep An article that has passed AfD numerous times before would certainly suggest to the objective viewer that it passes notability requirements. A Google search and news search would suggest the same. And controversy is never a reason to delete an article: see Race and Intelligence. Joshdboz (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and police without mercy. Notability asserted even beyond marginal notability. A couple of odd observations here though. If we were to invoke BLP the proper course would be to cover the event. Do we really want that in this case? Second, any nom with less than 100 edits who leaves right after AfD'ing a BLP makes me wonder what is going on. Sorry, I'm well aware of AGF but certain things can't be ignored that easily. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've been here for a year but not very consistently. This matter and other things I've read have caused me to lose interest in continuing with wikipedia. I just thought I'd try to get this thing deleted before I left and saw some support for this on Talk:Rachel Marsden. Also, since I couldn't find any AFD since this whole matter became a big issue I thought it was worth testing the floor. If you still think I'm somehow acting in bad faith I don't know what more there is to convince you that I'm not. SuperVideoGameKid (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, since the article was deleted, the previous AfDs weren't immediately visible so I'll take your word for it. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The sources in the article establish notability very very easily. Davewild (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notability and continuing to seek out speaking engagements trumps the wishes of the subject. Vandalism is not rationale for deletion. DarkAudit (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Good and reliable sources that go back a decade. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:55, 31 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 06:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Tree Friends deaths and injuries

Happy Tree Friends deaths and injuries (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

32 kilobytes of unreferenced trivia that belongs on a fansite. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete basically a list of stats of kills from the show, rm per WP:NOT#STATS -Gwguffey (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as Wikipedia is not a place for accumulating unreferenced, non-notable statistics. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fan trivia. WillOakland (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete essentially just fancruft. JuJube (talk) 01:34, 1 April 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 06:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improbus Atrum

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

Non-notable Myspace band. Fails WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 15:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{talk to me} 17:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - This is a blatant failure of WP:MUSIC per [18] (no news coverage at all) and [19] - not even a lot of ghits. For now, there is no notability - hopes for the future though. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:28, 1 April 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. DS (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jobian Day

A previously A7 deleted biography that cites no sources. The article makes claims of importance but I can't find anything to verify the content. I think the article may refer to this MySpace profile and I can't find any results relating for the person outside of MySpace - which is not a reliable source. Guest9999 (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I can't find anything but Myspace. If it is that guy, his profile says "p.s. I have fun causing trouble." JohnCD (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{talk to me} 17:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G7 as the original author blanked the page. Stifle (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MySpace Demos

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

Not-notable, unreleased album ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Has already been deleted once today as Speedy A7, Does it need to go through AfD or can it just be speedied a second time? Eve (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL if it can't be speedied. Subject doesn't seem superficially notable outside of myspace (somewhere I dare not go, where crappy HTML and badly written CSS abounds). Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:21, 31 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). No delete comments, some consensus to merge; merging is a question for talkpage discussion. Skomorokh 02:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dhaalu Atoll Hospital

Dhaalu Atoll Hospital (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A sentence is not an article, incurable failure of WP:ORG for local orgs. Earthtried1985 (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - This is about a hospital, not an organization. Does not need to meet WP:ORG. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • A hospital is a type of organisation. Why should a hospital be exempt from notability guidelines? Unless someone can point to sources in Divehi language or offline sources, as far as I can tell this clearly fails WP:N with no GHits besides Wikipedia and their own website under either their current or former name: Find sources: Dhaalu Atoll Hospital — news, books, scholar, Find sources: Dhaalu Atoll Health Centre — news, books, scholar. cab (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to locality Dhaalu Atoll? cab (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{talk to me} 16:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per above. I would normally be inclined to include these kinds of articles, but there is little to no information on this hospital on google or google books. And even without that secondary-source notability, the own site has very little usable primary source information. Perhaps there is more coverage in the native language, but at this point it doesn't suffice for its own article. Joshdboz (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per the above. I wanted to refer it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Maldives, but it doesn't appear to be an active project. I think there are probably non-English sources but I don't know where to start with that. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Dhaalu Atoll, fails WP:ORG and WP:N.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:40, 31 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. - Philippe 02:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] East Magazine

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

Not notable per WP:V. 'Nuff said. ukexpat (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No inherent notability; no 3rd party nontrivial coverage. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• I live in the area and it does deserve an entry on Wikipedia as the magazine is credited by the majority of the area as having vastly helped attract bigger name entertainment to the area through positively promoting what's on. The area's cultural activity would not be the same without it. However, these are just views and naturally impossible to find on the web to use as citations. Unfortunately, although the subject deserves recognition, it's very difficult to describe why. I would hate to see the article deleted but I guess it has to be under Wikipedia guidelines. theolimeister (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Source your claim and bring some references to prove the article is under wikipedia guidelines. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:09, 31 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 06:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hiring conference

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

Reads like an essay. OR, and possibly a veiled promotional piece - see final para. ukexpat (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, mainly as unsourced original research, but also as advertising - ever so tactful and unobtrusive, but advertising none the less. JohnCD (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:OR.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as original research with a side of spam. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Original research. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:57, 4 April 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. - Philippe 02:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop This Car

Stop This Car (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and unreleased song which may or may not be released as a single (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: It is an upcoming single, it will be recreated somewhere in the future. Wiki is not a crystal ball, BUT, Williams' label and Billboard already announced it as second single from this music project. The article just needs a clean up like I did with We Break The Dawn. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 18:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There is no point over the deletion of this article as it will be recreated in the future, and the nominee isn't clear at all. There is a clear statement on the site that it will be released as second single. If a trustworthy source isn't enough, then what can I do? I think that the responsible for the nominee is just too Deletionist. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 20:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment What point am I not being clear on? That Billboard reports the song is planned as a single is verifible and from a reliable source so it can be included in the artist and album articles. It does not, however, impart notability upon the song. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:CRYSTAL.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Bardcom (talk) 01:17, 6 April 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. - Philippe 02:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crash Test 02

Crash Test 02 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources provided, none found. Fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Article quotes musicians as stating the project has been put off again and again, so we should wait until the project is realeased and meets WP:MUSIC. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:CRYSTAL.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Bardcom (talk) 01:18, 6 April 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. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National BackUp Day

National BackUp Day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is both a personal essay and a soapbox for the author's page www.nationalbackupday.com Gihanuk (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable, no independent nontrivial reliable coverage at all. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Personal essay, not an article. DarkAudit (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Same reason as all above. Not "article" enough.

O—— The Unknown Hitchhiker 15:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete spammy TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Vanispamcruftisement, I believe. Maxamegalon2000 16:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete this is a a personal essay by a single purpose account that advertises the website with a bit of WP:COI and article ownership thrown in (use of I, the inclusion of email at the end) Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, including all the backups (hah). Ten ghits for what's supposed to be an online phenomenon. Two of them are Wikipedia, four (maybe five?) are social news sites, and the rest are unrelated. Also, the article content is totally inappropriate for an article. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete WP:CSD#G11, blatant advertisement. So tagged. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:47, 3 April 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. he made his professional debut. . - Philippe 02:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Danleigh Borman

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

Contested prod. Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league [20] (the PDL is not professional). Claiming that he will play (as the article's creator has done on his talk page) is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, as for all we know he may get injured and have to retire before ever playing. The article can easily be recreated as soon as he actually crosses the threshold and makes an appearance. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Move to withdraw as he now meets the criteria, having made his debut at the weekend. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Per WP:ATHLETE, Borman has played in the Rhode Island Stingrays, the U.S. top-level amateur men's competition of the United Soccer Leagues, leading his team in 2006 in goals. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• The criteria you refer to uses the phrase "highest level in amateur sports" - not "amateur league". Football is not an amateur sport in countries like the USA where there is a professional league. If we accepted the "amateur league" interpretation, then we'd end up with tonnes of articles on Football Conference and Scottish Second Division players, which is why WP:FOOTY seems to have a consensus on this issue. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't believe the player's collegiate or amateur performances are sufficient to confer notability. Re-create after player has appeared in a fully professional league. Jogurney (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep now that he has appeared in a fully professional league. Jogurney (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment FYI, Borman is projected to start on Saturday night in New York's season opener. I think it would make sense to keep this AfD open through Saturday night and make a decision based on whether or not he gets in the game. --Balerion (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It shouldn't be closed until Sunday anyway. As with the last one, I'll withdraw it if he plays. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmm - There seems to be no record of him playing for South Africa. His uncle, Randall, played for the national Under-20s and Under-23s, but there's no record at safa's official site of DANLEIGH playing for S Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.153.18 (talk) 11:08, 4 April 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 06:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gargantua-1

Gargantua-1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Real-world notability not asserted. shoy 14:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and insufficient notability in the show to warrant its own article. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete nothing to see here, move along. JuJube (talk) 01:38, 1 April 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 22:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We Break the Dawn

We Break the Dawn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased single (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: The single has a release date (actually it was released today), it was already premiered through People Magazine official site, making headlines right there. This article is very important because it is the first single from the artis to reach mainstream, the article is now sourced with references, it has high media coverage (for being released by a major site), and it was previously announced by another major media reviewer, the Billboard official site. So why delete this article? To be re-created? Tomorrow? Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 17:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Premiering as streaming audio is not the same as being released as a single. Once the song establishes notability with significant coverage in the media (a tiny blurb on People 's website is not significant, and the Billboard article is about her and the album, only mentioning that the song was slated to be a single) or when it's actually released and charts (which, hey, it's a catchy song, I don't doubt it will chart) then the article can be re-created. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Not only streaming, but being on the main page of www.people.com as headline (it isn't just a tiny blurb), alias if it is not significant, so what it is? The article on Billboard isn't about her, but her album being dance and moving away from gospel, also which song will be first and second single, also on her official website there is a statement of official release through people.com site. If this article is deleted it will be re-created, so there is no point to delete it. Deleting an article that actually will be re-created in the future even sounds controversy! Coz we can develop it, waiting for more reliable sources. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 20:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20186964,00.html, notable due to that alone. Corvus cornix_talk 23:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see how a single promotional blurb on a magazine's website equals notability. There's nothing like that in WP:MUSIC#Songs. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• KEEP: We Break the Dawn is a new single from Michelle Williams its even stated on her official webpage Michelle Williams Online. Wether or not a release date has not been set other websites including Billboard and Michelle's own blog on YouTube talks about the new single [21]. I wonder why the geeky wikipedian would put speedy delection code on the page. Ceddy 06 16:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to remain civil and discuss the notability of the subject, not the motives or the character of the nominator. Corvus cornix_talk 21:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The song has not been released as a single. You can't buy it or download it and radio stations aren't playing it yet. The only way you can listen to it is by streaming it on the People website. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• This is going to be a huge hit (subjective I know but look at the evidence - ex DC, all star writing and production, hugely catchy, already getting popular across the world - I live in France and I'm not even a fan of Williams')...why would the page be deleted? I was trying to find info on it, this page is useful. And will only expand and evolve rapidly... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.100.164.21 (talk) 22:34, 3 April 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 as advertising. - Philippe 02:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zabala vineyards

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

Written more or less like an advertisement. I was unable significant coverage from third party sources and seriously doubt that any such coverage exists. It only makes sense to keep articles about specific vineyards if it has a sufficiently rich history or a place among the world or the region's most celebrated producers. This one fails on both counts. Perhaps a redirect to the wine-region is an option. Pichpich (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete-Yes, the article is very biased. And, without the proper sources, I think it ought to be deleted. Cheers, Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom; it reads like an advert and doesn't assert notability in any way. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:54, 31 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 to delete, which defaults to keep. While I would love to tease consensus out of this, I'm afraid that I can't, and I do not believe relisting is likely to help. Arguments on both sides of the debate are within policy; this article's fate seems to hinge on the question of WP:N and whether or not coverage and contributions are trivial. Contributors on both sides of this have put laudable effort into resolving this question, but rational disagreement persists on this divide.

Although the larger concern raised by this AfD—specifically, the reliability of the individual as a source in other Wikipedia articles—may be a serious matter for consideration, it does not necessarily relate to the individual's notability. Notability is distinct from importance; notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles. The question of the authority of this individual's writing is a matter of what sources about this individual actually say and may be better handled by shaping the content of the article than citing its existence or non-existence.

Of course, it may be appropriate at some point to revisit the question of notability and see if a more clear consensus can form. In the meantime, the weight due this individual as a scholar in other articles may be separately addressed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Polak

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

This appears to be a non-notable person. Jehochman ^Talk 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Writing a few books, and teaching at university does not make a subject notable. Jehochman ^Talk 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Notability (people)), Christian Polak does fulfill the notability guideline: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." PHG (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the main assertion to notability is as a scholar, WP:PROF (rather than WP:BIO, which you cited) is the operative guideline. I do not see the requirements of WP:PROF being satisfied in this case (see my comments below). If one were to assert Polak's notability as a businessman, WP:BIO would be the correct guideline to use, but I have seen very little to justify his notability as a businessman. Nsk92 (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Nsk92, if a subject meets any notability guideline at all, the subject is considered notable. WP:Notability explicitly states the general guideline is an alternative to any of the specific guidelines, and WP:BIO has similar language. WP:PROF probably should have that language, but, regardless says the same thing (second sentence, "Criteria" section), so we're entitled to shop around. Noroton (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, he doesn't seem to meet the WP:Notability standard of "substantial" (more than a little detailed) coverage of him by independent, reliable sources. WP:PROF is probably the best guideline to look at.Noroton (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROF is a subguideline of WP:N, so WP:PROF is not meant to override the general requirements of WP:N (which still always apply) but rather to detail them. Nsk92 (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I respond below at the 01:32 April 3 edit. Noroton (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete. If he really is a notable specialist, what information can be provided to substantiate this claim? If sources can be found, keep; otherwise delete. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I added in the article a sampling of books and publications which use Christian Polak as a reference for Franco-Japanese relations. Regards. PHG (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

He has also been described as "the best specialist of the history of Franco-Japanese relations" by Philippe Pons, Japan correspondent for Le Monde (2005). PHG (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete-The man certainly does not stand out. Based on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, only a notable person may have an article designed after him (is "designed" the proper word?). Since this man does not fulfill the criterion, I suggest we delete it. Cheers, Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: a significant author and a quite well-known French specialist of Franco-Japanese relations. PHG (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article needs a more difinitive, sourced statement establishing that this is the notable aspect of this subject. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability hasn't been established through coverage in independent reliable sources. User:PHG has provided this google search--the first two results listed there aren't about the person Christian Polak, but combinations of the adjectives "Christian" and "Polak". The other results don't devote substantial coverage to Polak as a subject of biographical interest; they're merely passing mentions. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. (ec) The comment from Akhilleus attempts to impeach the sources provided, but that the "first two" (and, in fact, quite a few other) results did not relate was irrelevant. The source is a GoogleBook search, and turns up books by or mentioning Christian Polak, the orientalist,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] One of these is a general bibliography of French publications. Many sources can't be examined in detail through Googlebooks, but one source, Photography in Japan 1853-1912, by Terry Bennett, 2006, states: "As this book was going to press, the collector and writer Christian Polak, and expert on early French -Japanese relations, passed me a copy of an article ...." It is reasonably clear that, in his field, Christian Polak is notable. That was just a Googlebook search. The source japantimes likewise mentions: "Christian Polak, an expert on Jacoulet who contributed a biography of the artist to the catalog." Given that this article was just created yesterday, and that many sources regarding Polak may be in Japanese, and could take time to develop, this AfD would be oddly precipitate. Is it a coincidence that the author of this article is involved in a current request for clarification on an ArbComm decision, with nominator Jehochman? From what has been established, notability is marginal. I'd give this article some space to breathe before squashing it beneath the jackboot of AfD.--Abd (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Being mentioned does not make somebody notable. The subject needs to be written about, as a subject, not merely cited or referenced. Writing about oneself or other topics especially does not count towards notability. Again, Abd, your choice to involve yourself in PHG's business and add noise to the discussion is disruptive. Jehochman ^Talk 19:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

When editors are piling on to find and complain about every deviation from the strictest interpretation of the standards of Wikipedia, ranging across the entire set of contributions of the editor, it becomes harassment. An arbitrator just suggested that one user involved might drop the crusade, though milder language was used as befits that body. I'm involved in Wikipedia. I'm not following any user around and jumping into every spat I find. Rather, this particular one (the situation with PHG) inserted itself in front of me, as a particularly egregious abuse of an ArbComm decision, and when I commented, legitimately, I was attacked. I'm allowed to state facts, and a decision that those facts are irrelevant, which is up to the closer of this AfD, does not make the statement of them disruptive in any way, unless they were clearly irrelevant, which they are not. And Jehochman just repeated his attack. "Disruptive" is grounds for block. As I wrote before about this, make my day. But, don't do it unless you desire to disrupt the project, because it would be exactly that.--Abd (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are allowed to state facts, but the problem, Abd, is that you have a tendency to make incorrect assumptions about the history of a dispute, and then you start chastising people for perceived misdeeds. You often act as though you know what's going on, even though you don't, and indeed, your participation tends to considerably increase confusion, for those other readers who can't tell who is right and who is wrong. This type of activity is not helpful. --Elonka 20:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The citations provided by Abd are valid but there are too few of them to indicate that Polak has made significant impact in his scholarly field. A GoogleScholar search for him turns up almost nothing. I disagree to a point with Jehochman's logic: in scholarly articles people do not generally write about somebody else's research. They write articles containing new original research where the work of others is mentioned and/or discussed in context. So a high citation rate and a high H-index would be substatial indicators of academic notability. But that is not what we seem to have here. The total number of citations (per GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar together) seems to be rather small (maybe two dozen in total). So while he may be an expert (as are most people who got a PhD in something), there is not enough evidence to conclude that he is a significant expert in his field who made a substantial impact on that field. This tells me that he fails WP:PROF and I did not see arguments for other kinds of notability, per WP:BIO, offered here. Nsk92 (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• delete per Jehochman & Nsk92's reasoning. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment for transparency's sake, it should be noted that this AfD, the article, and the article's creator PHG (talk · contribs) are related to an ArbCom case. The result of the case was that PHG, the creator of this article and many others, has been found to be misinterpreting sources. He was banned from working on articles about medieval and ancient history, but then immediately after the case closed he created the article France-Japan relations (19th century), which has some information about the 16th century (just outside the definition of "medieval"). His major source for that article was the works of Christian Polak. When challenged about the source, PHG then created this Christian Polak article, but with few solid sources. This AfD was then filed by Jehochman (talk · contribs), the same editor who filed the ArbCom case to begin with. There is currently an open Request for amendment (filed by PHG, against me Elonka (talk · contribs)) which is being considered by the arbitrators, which mentions both articles and some other related issues. I'm not weighing in on whether or not the article should be deleted, but I did want to make it clear that there's a larger dispute here. If any editors here at the AfD would like to offer statements at the Request for amendment, please feel free. I also recommend reading the discussions at Talk:France-Japan relations (19th century), as it would be helpful to get more knowledgeable opinions there as well. Thanks, --Elonka 22:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Small point. PHG was found to have, in a few cases, out of voluminous contributions, misinterpreted sources. This was not considered serious enough, apparently to prevent him from editing in general, and the topic ban was only as Elonka stated. ArbComm specifically encouraged him to edit outside the banned topics (and within the topics through Talk, similar to a COI editor; the theory seems to be that his errors were due to his enthusiasm for what may have been original research). The article on France-Japan relations is *solidly* outside the field of "medieval" history, and that it has "some information" which is "almost" medieval doesn't change that, the focus is clearly as stated, 19th century, and does not make it even mentionable as some kind of violation, which has been done, unfortunately (not so much here, but definitely elsewhere), nor does that article -- nor this one -- seem to be promoting any novel theories or extraordinary claims. Yes, knowledgeable opinions sought, and sensible editorial review from those not involved with what was obviously a bitter content and behavioral dispute.--Abd (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Abd, please review the updates being considered to the Arb case where they clearly state they were signaling to PHG that his behavior needed changing; it is not helpful to anyone, least of all PHG, that you hamper the possibility for those changes through your misguided advocacy. You continue to misstate the breadth of the sourcing issues and the scope of the case despite several editors informing you of your errors; you continue to twist the facts to help your "cause" and advance these supposed "theories" that in truth belong only to you. Your habit of jumping from dispute to dispute to stir the pot is starting to grate. Shell ^babelfish 05:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weakest of keeps -- several citations of someone being called an expert is borderline, but considering he is attracting such attention outside of either of the main languages in which he is working pushes it slightly towards keep for me. Google Scholar is positively horrendous in documenting published work in the humanities. However, it should be noted against keeping that (1) JSTOR has no hits for him, and (2) some of the excerpts in the Google Books search for "Christian Polak" are not for him (they refer to a coauthored book by "Lastname, Christian/Polak, Regina") -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Just in case I also did a WebofScience search and a Scopus search that also yielded no results. I think that being called an "expert" by a few sources is not enough to signify academic notability. One needs to be considered a "significant expert" per WP:PROF which usually requires some positive evidence of having made a substantial impact in one's field, either in terms of citations or academic honors and awards. Nether seem to be present here. Nsk92 (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Please note that I excluded those hits in the list I gave above, unless I made a mistake.--Abd (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, wrong standards are being used. The standard for notability is coverage by multiple, independent, reliable sources. The man may be the finest of experts, respected by all, but if nobody is writing about him in reliable sources, we cannot create a proper Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original material. I like to write original material too, but I don't do that here. Jehochman ^Talk 09:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I politely disagree -- mention of a scholar as an expert in a peer-reviewed journal or book published by a respected press is coverage by a reliable source. Note also that Web of Science has next to no information on the humanities--Here are some top names in music research: Thomas Forrest Kelly (10 records, the most cited twice! Missing all his major books and articles); Margaret Bent (30 items with the most cited 8 times? I've cited that article at least 8 times in publications myself; her C.V. lists over 150 publications) ; Christoph Wolff (finalist for the Pulitzer prize and University Professor at Harvard: 20 articles on WoS, the most cited six times?); and all the music research world is gathering this June to honor the 10th anniversary of the death of Nino Pirrotta, a man who, according to WoS was only ever cited 9 times. These numbers have no connection to the number of citations in the real world, mostly because WoS has never learned to parse footnotes in the humanities, in foreign languages, or in printed journals: the staples of citation in the humanities. So, where does one go for information on the importance of a writer in the humanities if there aren't accurate citation counts? We look for clues such as "expert" given by people who read the journals and not just count citations. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that GoogleScholar and WOS are pretty awful when it comes to humanities. And I agree that a mention of a scholar as an expert in a peer-reviewed journal or book published by a respected press is coverage by a reliable source. But one or two such mentions are not enough to indicate notability. Yes, establishing notability for academics in humanities is a difficult problem but we still have to use some kind of positive and verifiable evidence. I have a couple of thoughts on this (although, being a mathematician, I am a bit of an outsider to the world of humanities). First, it seems that GoogleBooks is a more reliable indicator of notability in humanities than GoogleScholar, WOS and Scopus. Second, I noticed that in other AfD discussions DGG often cites information about how many libraries carry books by the academic in question. I don't know where and how DGG gets this data, but it could be used, including in this case, as an indicator. I hope that DGG will participate in this discussion as well. Coming back to GoogleBooks, I did searches for the notable musicology names you mentioned. For "Thomas Forrest Kelly" there were 184 hits [35] and for "Christoph Wolff" there were 674 [36]. By comparison, for Christian Pollak, the total humber of hits was 28, from which at most 9 appear to be about him.

As an experiment, I did a GoogleBooks search for a few other people that I picked, more or less randomly, from the websites of the history departments of several U.S. universities (not particularly major). The first is Sarah Kovner, who is a faculty member at the University of Florida (the web site says that her PhD is 1995 and that she is an Assistant Professor[37]; her area is listed there as "Japanese History, Gender History, and International History"[38]). A GoogleBooks search gives 57 hits [39], most of which appear to be about her. Another person I checked was David Bachrach, an Assistant Professor in the history department at the University of New Hampshire. His area is listed as Medieval History[40]. A GoogleBooks search for "David Bachrach" midieval gives 13 hits [41], all related to him. (Without the midieval addition one gets 154 hits, but many of them are not about him). Another example: Thomas J. Finan, Assistant Professor, history department at the University of St Louis (PhD 2001), specialization listed as Medieval History: [42][43] GoogleBooks gives 38 hits,[44] at least a half of which seem to be related to him. All three of these cases concern fairly junior researchers (Assistant Professors), and in all three cases GoogleBooks results are better than for Polak. Nsk92 (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Ignore my comments in the long thread just below. There isn't enough sourcing to meet any of our notability requirements -- neither WP:N, WP:BIO nor WP:PROF. The closest criterion this might meet is WP:PROF #1 (regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources) but Example #2 in that guideline requires that there be plenty of those sources, and we don't have that many, even though there's been plenty of searching for them. Thanks to Nsk92 for help with understanding WP:PROF. Noroton (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep {See my comment just above) I'll admit up front that I haven't read every word of this discussion (I did scan every contribution), so please feel free to excoriate me if this point has been thoroughly hashed over: WP:PROF states The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. Meeting this single criteria (or others) is enough for WP:PROF to declare the subject notable (see the paragraph just above the quote, in the "Criteria" section). Now, I see these two sources listed high up in the footnotes:
  • "The collector and writer Christian Polak, an expert on early French -Japanese relations", Photography in Japan 1853-1912 by Terry Bennett, Page 143
  • "Christian Polak, le meilleur specialiste de l'histoire des relations Franco-Japonaises", Philippe Pons, Japan correspondant for Le Monde, in "Sabre et pinceau", 2005

Forgive my bad French, but I translate that last as "the best specialist of the history of Franco-Japanese relations". Am I mistranslating? These appear to be reliable sources, therefore the criterion is met, therefore WP:PROF is satisfied, therefore he's notable, therefore keep.Noroton (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

second thoughts: The first item I cited, where Terry Bennett calls him an "expert" is not enough. WP:PROF wants "significant expert" (emphasis added). There may or may not be a second reliable source that essentially calls Polak a significant expert, but it one potential second source was added by User:PHG and, given the RFA, and given that online translators give different wording, it's too difficult to put any faith in the accuracy of the translation. I've put a note on the Talk:Christian Polak page about it. If that translation holds up, the article unquestionably meets WP:PROF. Noroton (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC) -tweaked wording (replaced "it" with a phrase) Noroton (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

These are certainly valid references, but I don't think just these two references are enough to justify that he is regarded as a significant expert in the field. In practice, when WP:PROF is applied, one needs either a substantial amount of coverage of the person in question in the mainstream press as an expert in a particular area or some substantial evidence, in the form of citations in scholarly publications and books, academic awards etc, that the person has made significant impact in the field. This is how WP:PROF has been consistently interpreted in other AfD discussions related to notability of academics. The same is true for the general applicability of WP:N and WP:BIO: having one or two references by reliable sources regarding the subject, even if they explicitly assert notability of this subject, is almost never sufficient for satisfying the notability requirements. So having just two mentions of him in the mainstream press does not, in my view, satisfy the requirements of WP:PROF in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with WP:PROF AfDs, and the past practice may well be just as you say, but I try to follow the exact language on the guideline page. At WP:PROF, Criterion #1 doesn't require any substantial coverage from those particular sources. That's true with some criteria you find in other notability guidelines, such as WP:MUSIC. Each notability guideline sets up alternate criteria to WP:N that do not rely on a substantial amount of coverage by individual sources. I find in that in AfDs there are too many different interpretations of the policies and guidelines, so the way I do it is by going with the exact wording I see on the page (and, of course, common sense). I think closing admins, when they need to interpret policies and guidelines, have to look at them the same way. Noroton (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the language of WP:PROF needs to be clarified but I am fairly sure that I am correct about how criterion 1 has been traditionally interpreted. This is supported, in part, by an example explicitly given in WP:PROF: "An academic repeatedly quoted in newspapers or newsmagazines may be considered to meet criterion 1. A small number of quotations, especially in local newsmedia, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." This seems to be on the mark in this case since the number of references to Polak in traditional newsmedia is very small. I should also mention that, in my understanding, WP:PROF is a subguideline of WP:N and it is not meant to override WP:N (unless explicitly stated so) but to detail it. Nsk92 (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right about that example. I read that, but not carefully enough. I'll probably wind up voting delete. But reread the first sentence in the "Criteria" section. WP:PROF and all other notability guidelines provide alternate routes to notability that don't depend on WP:N requirements. I don't think there's any other way to interpret their explicit language on that. Noroton (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Convenience break 1

• Keep: I'll bite. With absolutely zero experience in this field, I just added a sentence showing Polak's links to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Japan), Japanese publishing house Toshi Shuppan, and its journal with contributions from the likes of Strobe Talbott. That and the other cites seem sufficient to break the pro-Anglophone glass ceiling. Feel free to pick apart, but the presumption of notability has been met for me; Polak is "regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources" sufficiently for such a narrow field, and is "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". I'm also wondering what happened with the preferred deletion alternatives of regular editing, merging, discussion, and/or proposed deletion, in the 7 hours between article creation and this AFD. With so little time for determining notability in such a layered situation, how can one claim consensus to delete has gelled? John J. Bulten (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • John, though uninvolved opinions are often helpful, and I am trying to assume good faith, I have to question your participation here. You wouldn't by any chance be weighing in here with "zero experience", because of the long discussions that you and I were having over your behavior at the Ron Paul and Moneybomb articles, would you?[45] I see from your contribs (John J. Bulten (talk · contribs)) that your main area of participation on Wikipedia is still in topics related to the U.S. Presidential election. It seems a bit odd to see you suddenly weighing in on matters so far afield, such as this AfD, and an "out of the blue" statement at ArbCom.[46] Which doesn't mean that you can't participate, but for total transparency, it would usually be best if you identified that you were involved in a prior dispute with one of the participants. --Elonka 00:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Elonka, that is seriously out of place. An arbiter has recommended you abstract yourself from your "multiple interventions" with respect to PHG, and now you raise suspicion about an editor who actually comes up with sources for an article under AfD? I'll join that arbiter, it's time to pack it up, Elonka. As to disclosing some prior dispute, did you do that when intervening here, above?--Abd (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, I believe I did. And Abd, as I (and others) have mentioned to you before, I think it would be wise if you spent more time actually working on articles, rather than just jumping from dispute to dispute. --Elonka 04:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Thank you so much Abd! I really appreciate finding a kindred spirit on the view that AFD comments should focus on hard proof of reliable sourcing instead of side issues-- especially from other editors with "zero experience" in 19th-century Franco-Japanese relations. And I'm so glad I can step in as an editor who has recently grown beyond WP:SPA, because though I may have formerly faced unthinking attacks for choosing to edit only one topic, I can now confidently face the next level of WP instead. I think the points I made, about having many notable links, the risk of improperAnglophone bias, the meeting of the plain words of both WP:N and WP:PROF (to the point that another editor is now questioning whether WP:PROF itself should be edited for clarity), the failure to pursue deletion alternatives, and the hyper-immediatist Hobson's choice forced by this AFD ("source or delete now"), should be probative against the nonarguments of the deletionists. If anyone (especially the closer) has any questions about the topic Abd is responding to, well, ---> John J. Bulten (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• library holdings I get my data on library holdings primarily by searching WorldCat. It has limitations: it includes all US and Canadian academic libraries, most of the larger USD public libraries, many of the major academic libraries in the UK, and a few major academic and national libraries in Europe. It has to interpreted in that light--a book primarily of interest in Japan or even in both France and Japan will not usually show many copies in the US except in a few very specialized collections. That's the case here--many of dozen or so major US libraries collecting academic works on Japanese art have some of this books. there is presently no easy way of doing quite as well for other countries, except by looking in catalogs of individual libraries. There's no special art in doing the search. For the obvious sort of recent academic or general interest books, a negative or near-negative result is a pretty good indication t hat the works are not notable, but this does not necessarily apply for books like these. The comparative method of Nsk is a good way to go, except that the comparisons he gives are not really valid here, since one would expect much more for a US scholar. This applies not just to WorldCat, but to Google Scholar or Google Books also--they are in practice very much US-centric (Google Books is relatively international for all European countries for earlier works, but for recent ones it only puts them in with publishers permission, and basically only the US publishers cooperate) --I consider a low or negative result not very meaningful for someone is his specific position. He's clearly not a very major figure, but he might still be significant in his niche. All i can say as a conclusion is:
  

Very weak keep.. DGG (talk) 05:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As to raw standards, I agree. Frankly, though, the harm to the project by keeping this is minute, if there is any at all, and is far outweighed by the fuss created by the AfD, which was blatantly created because the nominator is involved in a conflict with the author of the article, as is another contributor here intensely arguing for deletion. (Whether or not they were originally neutral would be irrelevant; their comments here and elsewhere show some serious personal involvement.) I would never have become involved here if this were not part of a pattern of harassment of the user, intended or not.--Abd (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The above statement by Abd, as usual, is incorrect. The nominator is not involved in the conflict with PHG. Administrator Jehochman did start the ArbCom case, and this AfD, and has offered comments and statements, but to my knowledge has never interacted with PHG on any article talkpage. I am extremely familiar with the last several months of this dispute, and I would be hard-pressed to identify a single article that both PHG and Jehochman edited. In fact, Jehochman unblocked PHG when he had been blocked for disruption in December.[47] Next, Abd, your comment that another person involved in the conflict is "intensely arguing for deletion", who exactly would that be? I have reviewed this page several times and cannot identify who you are talking about. Please, if you are going to make these kinds of incendiary claims, try to provide diffs to back them up, otherwise it is just more empty accusations which tend to confuse the issue. More "smoke than light". --Elonka 20:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the ulterior motives happening beneath the surface (and they might exist for all I or anyone knows), the AfD issue here is really about whether we can research and write an encyclopedia entry based on the policy and guideline criteria. Regarding the argument that it doesn't do any harm to the project by keeping this article, here is an interesting essay that covers that issue as one of the "arguments to avoid" in deletion discussions (see WP:NOHARM):"As for articles about subjects that do not hold to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes - it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here." It's a legitimate and thought-provoking point, I think. J Readings (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, to Abd:) Thank you again. I agree that, for similar reasons, there is much more harm to WP by deleting than by retaining. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

JR, to expand on your good point, and considering my latest sources, any harm related to any less-than-verified portions of this article pales in the face of the harm that may result from setting a precedent that literally any article can be deleted for nonnotability (which is not provable) without a fair chance to show notability (which can take time to prove). As to the harm that may be engendered by either deletion or retention being misused as a demonstration of consensus in the larger personality conflict, I think that either evens out or tips in favor of retention being less harmful. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Taking your last point first, I think you're referring to the bad faith that a couple of editors are alleging against a few other editors here. In my personal opinion, it's not helpful to focus on that issue if the AfD attracts third-party editors who were not involved in any of those previous scuffles. Speaking only for myself, I'm here for the subject matter as it relates to Japan. Second, despite a common misperception, an AfD is not a vote. The closing admin is entrusted to read through the arguments as they relate to the substance of the subject in relation to the policies and guidelines. Third, in terms of that substance, I think that it's helpful to remember that we're trying to establish the notability of a biographical subject (which is possible within a 5-day AfD), not completely re-write the article within 5 days (that can come later). On the former, the six databases I mentioned (JSTOR, WorldCat, LexisNexis, Factiva, Google News, Google Books) are excellent sources of information. The general notability requirements call for independent, third-party sources that are both "reliable" and "significant" in their coverage of the subject. To quote the notability guidelines: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." The problem with Christian Polak, excluding his own books which are irrelevant for the AfD and the few one-sentence mentions in newspapers and magazines, is that there hasn't been any "significant coverage." That's the issue that needs to be addressed. If his writings are notable, where are the book reviews in reliable newspapers? Where are the academic book and journal citations? Where are the "major" write-ups in the media, more generally? As far as I can tell, having researched this gentleman over the past couple days, he hasn't experienced any of that coverage (yet). J Readings (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Search results for "Christian Polak":

Google News: zero articles.

LexisNexis: 14 articles, most of which are false positives. Only one makes a major mention of Polak in connection with his comments on the Tom Cruise movie, The Last Samurai (not a good start for writing an encyclopedia entry). The rest are one sentence mentions that don’t conform to the criteria of WP:N.

Factiva (English): five articles linking him with Japan, so as to avoid false positives. Once again, he gets one-sentence mentions in these articles, but they are not about him or his ideas. These do not really support the WP:N requirements.

Factiva (French):17 articles—obviously a slightly more substantial accumulation for Polak in the French media, but still we’re talking about single-sentence mentions within these articles.

Google Books: 28 hits, some of them are false positives. For example, “Millie Graham was a Christian, Polak a Jew, but their real religion….” Looking through the books, I found a few that do indeed mention Polak in passing, but nothing substantial to indicate that his work was being cited or taken seriously.

JSTOR: zero hits. The fact that academics have not cited Polak at all in any academic journal article that is recorded on JSTOR hurts his notability substantially.

WorldCat: only four hits. Two of which are books that Polak published Paul Jacoulet (in French) and another entitled Kinu to Hikari (in Japanese). A third and fourth book (are the same, different editions), apparently written about Honda in Spanish, mentions “Christian Polak” in the keyword search, but it could be a false positive.

—This is part of a comment by J Readings , which was interrupted by the following: I appreciate your work. Please note the third book in WorldCat is in French and Portuguese (not Spanish), and Polak is listed as collaborator, per the Details tab. [48] All three are now listed among the seven or eight books mentioned in the article. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems you're using a different WorldCat site (my entries were in Spanish but it's restricted access). In any case, fair enough. This one appears to be in French. J Readings (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Actually, strike. You're right. I went back and checked WorldCat again. See [49] They're in French and Portuguese. My apologies. You're right. J Readings (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• My vote: the weakest of keeps. Christian Polak is a borderline case of notability. Based on the evidence, I wouldn't be surprised if the closing admin decided to delete the article. There's not much we can use and cite from the the independent, third-party sources to justify a good article. J Readings (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Strike my last comment. This article is really a delete, in my view. Having looked thoroughly through these six databases now, there is not enough objective material to justify the article's notability requirements which will likely lead -- sooner or later -- to a lot of primary source citations (if any) and puffery (none of which is really good for a tertiary source like Wikipedia.) J Readings (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

JR, I politely disagree with your idea above that 5 days to establish notability is proper in this case, because (1) no other steps were tried by the nominator in the 7 hours after creation, (2) one bio tag and one source question at talk do not constitute sufficient prior steps by others, (3) the nominator (and the questioner) were just in arbitration with the creator, and (4) the desire of these two parties to assist the new-article patroller is certainly understandable within good faith, but any good-faith explanation for this particular choice of forum is at least as weak as you think the notability is-- good faith would be more likely to wait more than 7 hours before AFD. But even so, the article seems clearly to have surpassed WP:HEY by now. (Also I don't think I'm referring to any bad-faith allegations made here, although of course the ArbCom case was documented to have many bad-faith allegations.) As for the possibility that rewriting can come later, recall your !vote and that ArbCom is considering a ban on the creator reworking deleted articles in his userspace. Since I don't think "his own books which are irrelevant" and "few one-sentence mentions" are a sufficient characterization of everything unearthed, I guess I need to make my own list:

• Your Google news analysis looks mistaken, I found 10-12 (not 0) relevant pay articles here, 7 from Le Monde and Les Échos (which reviewed Sabre et pinceau and Honda par Honda in the face of the question "Where are the book reviews in reliable newspapers").

—This is part of a comment by John J. Bulten , which was interrupted by the following: The Google News was accidentally set for "last month", so yes it was a mistake. Unfortunately, your "all dates" isn't much better. "Christian Polak" and "Japan" still receives no hits whatsoever. As for just "Christian Polak" you need to be aware of false positives which could very well exist without reading every article in detail. Sorry. J Readings (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• You have (say) 3-6 LN articles and at least 22 Factiva articles; single-sentence mentions add up, and surely there must be more than just one with multiple-sentence coverage. Several of the above mention The Last Samurai, not just one. Japan Times says "expert".

—This is part of a comment by John J. Bulten , which was interrupted by the following: Single-sentence mentions amount to little, I'm afraid. Sorry. J Readings (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• As PHG and Abd pointed out, 12 or 13 of the Google Books results are relevant. (Using JSTOR is arguing from a negative, and in a field JSTOR is weak in.) Bennett, Photography in Japan, says "expert".

—This is part of a comment by John J. Bulten , which was interrupted by the following: John, where did you read that JSTOR is "weak" in academic fields such as diplomacy, history, international relations or the humanities? Surely, not from JSTOR itself which is actually quite strong in 47 disciplines with 1,856,206 full-length articles. J Readings (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I need to interject a comment on this. JSTOR contains 1100 journals total, including about 5% of the available academic titles in the humanities ; more important in this connection, it is almost totally limited to journals published in English. Very little French, no Japanese. A negative result in JSTOR is in my opinion meaningless here. DGG (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Further follow-up based on this discussion [50]. I did check two major French-language academic databases Francis and Répère. There were no hits on either.Slp1 (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• We're up to 10 books authored or co-authored now, more than "a few".

—This is part of a comment by John J. Bulten , which was interrupted by the following: Which, once again, has nothing to do with independent, third-party reliable sources covering a subject. J Readings (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)