Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 9

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

The result was keep. John254 00:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hall Garth School

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

Article deprodded with little improvement. Notabilty in and of itself is not established and the new ref is minor and relates to the incident, not the school. Only the town links there. Reywas92^Talk 23:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. How doesn't the 1994 intrusion and classroom killing not relate to the school? A Google News search indicates that the incident shocked the UK, got worldwide coverage, and cast a long shadow over the school for years. It may not be Columbine, but the school and its issues plenty of WP:RS coverage. High schools tend to be notable. • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The Hall Garth stabbing is very notable. School stabbings in the UK are very rare, especially multiple random stabbings with no apparent motive. As Gene93k said, this shocked the UK. I was about 9 years old when this happened,and had no interest in the news, but I remember it vividly. The stabbing also had implications for other schools, including mine, which increased security. Andrew Duffell (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should have an article on the stabbing then, if had so much impact. Andrew, as you created the page, added the info, and removed the prod, It would really be helpful if you added an infobox or some other useful information. Reywas92^Talk 16:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - apart from the stabbing plenty of news items here including a notable anti-bullying initiative. TerriersFan (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - notable incident even if it was before the majority of news sources were online and/or archived. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, we usually consider schools notable anyway. The incident just adds to that. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 22:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as per TerriersFan's improvements. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Connor S. Kidd

Connor S. Kidd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not sure that it meets WP:NN. It does fail WP:NPOV and WP:BLP CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete although I am glad that this page has referances that work, but beeing interviewed for a 1 paragraph blerb in Forbs, a single local article, and having a myspace dosn't qualify for notablility.Coffeepusher (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Even though its the lead paragraph in Forbes, its there fore human interest, specifically as something trivial that illustrates a general phenomenon, not for notability. DGG (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete There are a few sources, and if more extensive sources could be provided, I may be willing to change my mind. However, the level of coverage in the sources currently in the article seems to be trivial at this point.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree with DGG. The kid isn't notable in his own right, he was used as an example to illustrate a general topic. The paragraph he gots was a typical human interest story, thousands of which get printed every day in the papers ETC. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 22:55, 12 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 speedily deleted by User:David Eppstein. Wizardman 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph William Thomas

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

Does not follow WP:NPOV for biographies §tepshep • ¡Talk to me! 23:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Article is utter nonsense. OlenWhitaker 23:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as tagged. Why is there an AfD at all? scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 00:00, 10 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Boot Camp

Operation Boot Camp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page reads just like an advertisement complete with a section explaining its franchise options. Thinly vailed Spam advertisement. Major contributers are several Single purpose accounts and IP adresses (single purpose as well). Coffeepusher (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable, and there is a recent / ongoing effort to fix the POV in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.197.198 (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, has references asserting notability although it could do with being cleaned up. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 22:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. Just barely notable. Annamonckton (talk) 14:50, 15 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 Redirect to World cinema -- Flyguy649 ^talk 03:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign film

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

The article world cinema itself notes that both terms are interchangeable. This article is vague (what exactly counts as "foreign"?), and much of it seems to be used simply to defend foreign films themselves ("French films have been at the fore front of innovation and experimentation since film's inception"). Finally, the world cinema article is quite detailed and already covers the term "foreign film" much more thoroughly than this article. DearPrudence (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Frag Well elucidated. World cinema is the better choice to settle these redundancies. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect. Holy schnitzel, movies are made in places other than Hollywood?! </sarcasm> Redirect to world cinema, I suppose - "foreign film" is a relative term, anyways. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect. "Foreign film" is a very relative term, and the other article already has this subject covered. PC78 (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect. Thanks for the laugh, Zetawoof! Reywas92^Talk 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I aim to amuse. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Meaningless title. Every film is a foreign film to most people, and there's no content here worth merging anywhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Team flight brothers

Team flight brothers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Philippe | Talk 05:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It's hard to tell through all the on-line video, but I can hardly see evidence they exist other than all those videos. Mangoe (talk) 17:44, 10 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Endless Online RPG

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

Was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endless Online (3rd nomination); this is not identical material, but it suffers from the same problems of lack of WP:V and WP:N Marasmusine (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete A quick search turned up no WP:RS and considering this has gone through the ringer so many times I'm inclined to salt.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, this topic is going to need better sources than a blog on blogspot. --Pixelface (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and salt per Torchwoodwho Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A hand in the bush

A hand in the bush (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

While the book itself might be notable, this article is unsalvageable; it's a book review written in the first person, which seems to not have been noticed when an editor removed the prod I placed on this article. If it can be rewritten from scratch, that would be okay, but the article right now needs to go. JuJube (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC) The article was redone to remove the first-person review and instead is now a somewhat empty article that still contains a strong claim of notability. I'd invite people to review their votes. JuJube (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing under slight protest. JuJube (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I've never seen a whole article in first person before. The source doesn't seem to mention the book at all, and there's no page on the author herself. I'm sure that this book can be a handy reference, but as it stands, it doesn't seem to be the subject of any in depth coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to be a notable enough book now, just needs to be stretched out expanded. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above...especially the part about in depth coverage. OlenWhitaker (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The new version of the article cites a reference and sticks to the basic facts. I would say it now meets the criteria for a proper stub article. OlenWhitaker (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like we've all got dirty minds. The article was apparently intended to be funny: "problems with the book involve that it's a lot of fluff"; "seems to lack any real hard information"; "long-term considerations don't enter into it"; "this act can be about trust and love and all those gooey things"; oh yeah, and "in depth" snicker snicker Mandsford (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I added a reliable source for this before the nom brought this to AfD, and, as I pointed out in my edit summary, again before the AfD nomination, there are more reliable sources at Google books which show notability. The nominator doesn't give any valid deletion rationale - the only complaints seem to be about content, which can be fixed by editing, rather than about whether an article should exist on this subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep — If you agree that the book itself is a legitimate subject, but your only problem is with the way it's written, why are you so hasty to delete? Instead of doing the lazy thing and destroying someone's hard work, why not rewrite it yourself? Or if you don't know anything about it, tag it for a rewrite and let someone else do it--or perhaps learn enough about it yourself to be able to do a good rewrite, expanding your own knowledge in the process? I fail to see how deleting this is going to help the project. And shouldn't that be our criteria--not following a bunch of bureaucratic rules, but rather doing what helps the project? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Dubbing a first-person review full of silly innuendo someone else's hard work is laughable. It would have been better to delete the article and start over and get the silly crap out of history, but apparently anyone that actually wants to delete an article is a "bureaucrat". In any case, I've invited people to review the article and will most likely withdraw this nom, but I still think it should have been deleted and that actual authors more familiar with the subject should have taken a crack at it, but apparently keeping the history of idiot vandals is more important than writing an encyclopedia. JuJube (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost all Wikipedia articles have been vandalized, do you want us to delete them all and undelete the unvandalized versions? By the way, qualifying user:Overpowered of vandal is a bit overstated. There is a difference between adding "unencyclopedic" content and vandalizing. Cenarium (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Per the Guardian source.Cenarium (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is a stub at the most, and has very little if any reason to be hosted by Wikipedia. Consider Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone: it has book art, release dates, publisher/genre information, even a picture. It is on its way of becoming a B-class article. This stub, though, contains too little information to be kept on Wikipedia, and should be deleted. Alex Perrier (talk • contribs) 00:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC

  I suggest that you familiarize with our deletion policy. We have thousands of stubs, this is not a valid reason for deletion [1].Cenarium (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, Alex, and if you don't follow that friendly suggestion.... Seriously, though, it's probably just as well that this article doesn't have pictures. Some things are best left to the imagination. Mandsford (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  Alex, your comment indicates to me that you are unfamiliar with how wikis are supposed to work. People shouldn't be exepcted to create a moderate-length article right off the bat. Rather, the whole point of a wiki is collaborative editing by the community, which means the article starts out with just a little stub--but you keep it there, so as people stop by they can add their own bit of information to it, so that the article grows organically over time. Deleting stubs would make that process--which is an inherent part of a wiki--impossible. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:18, 10 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Invasion Comedy

Indian Invasion Comedy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article, about an apparently straight-to-DVD comedy video, was created in the wake of a number of attempts (one, two & three) to insert the link to the official site into unrelated articles. While the number of Google hits on the title is initially impressive, it's difficult to find ones which aren't in some way promotional or which could be viewed as significant coverage (professional reviews etc). Most telling is the fact that Google News doesn't yield a single review or announcement of this DVD's release. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the promotion of DVDs; nor is it a home for that which lacks significant, independent coverage. Sturm 09:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. It is written slightly in an advertising tone but it passes on WP:N and WP:V (IMDB reference). -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 13:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• An IMDB entry doesn't, on its own, assert notability. See David's Demon or Green Arrow Fan Film. --Sturm 13:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment – Tagged for speedy. It is a cut and paste from a clearly marked copyrighted site as provided here [2]. Shoessss |  Chat  02:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I have restored the article and reopened the debate. If you look at the page http://www.indianinvasioncomedy.com/clips.htm, the DVD description and comedian biographies are released under the GNU Free Documentation Licence and can be freely used in Wikipedia, hence it is not a copyright violation. One may, however, have their suspicions about the GFDL being for promotional purposes, but to delete as a copyvio is against the proper process. --Canley (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment – Man, I got to get new glasses. I should have never missed that one. Thanks for the catch Canley Sorry. Shoessss |  Chat  11:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for breaking any rules of article creation and linking. I created the original article because I just bought the DVD and am a fan. I have plans to expand it by adding more details about Indian comedy, not just this show. This show is notable because it's the only US show featuring Indian comedians, other than Russell Peters.

I didn't make all of those links mentioned above, but I did link to Margaret Cho and Chris Rock because one of the comedians was a co-host on a TV show with Margaret, and the other has opened for and is good friends Chris Rock (as mentioned in their bios).

Regarding the bios, I asked for permission from the site owner, that is why he added the GNU text at the bottom of the page. I was planning to change and expand those later.

My understanding is that the show will be broadcast in the summer on PPV, and then on MTV India in the fall. If the article belongs in a different category, I'll put it there.

As for press coverage, it hasn't received coverage from big media, but it has been covered by Indian media: AVSTV (a US based nationally syndicated TV show), India Today (US based nationally distributed newspaper), Mehfil Magazine (Canadian Magazine), and a few others. It'll also be the feature story in Anokhi Magazine, a US based Indian entertainment magazine.

Sorry for breaking any rules. Please let me know what the decision is so I don't spend more time on editing. Grassvalley (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It was also featured on Imaginasian TV. Grassvalley (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It may never become a featured article, but it appears to be notable. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete So far all the notability I can see here is inherited. Most of the actors were co-hosts, are friends with famous people, or have been on reality shows and the like. The DVD itself gets no notable Google hits. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep — All these arguments about notability miss the point. Ultimately, "notability" is a purely arbitrary standard, and frankly I'm not sure why we should even care about it anyway. Isn't verifiable existence sufficient? Why does it have to meet some arbitrarily-defined and arbitrarily-judged "notability" to be worthy of inclusion? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no stand-alone notability. Fails WP:N. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:11, 10 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 redirect to Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sloan Work and Family Research Network at Boston College

Sloan Work and Family Research Network at Boston College (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability concerns - I was only able to find trivial media coverage in reliable sources.--Addhoc (talk) 17:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect. Until today, the article was a redirect to the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. I don't believe a redirect of that type is unreasonable, and restored that redirect in lieu of a speedy delete earlier today. I concur with Addhoc, in that I can find few sources that confirm the organization's existance, with none proving notability. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. In some parts, the article is pure spam. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} 23:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• There is evidence in its existence through the Sloan Foundation and also through Boston College - both credible resources. sbmorrison 11:22, 3, March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbmorrison (talk • contribs) 16:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Clean up - I would rather clean it up than delete it. Tagged as such. Not sure where to begin. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect I can't find much evidence of notability, so I agree with Ultraexactzz. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect until outside sources are found. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Perhaps a merge and redirect would be appropriate, but an outright deletion certainly would have no positive effect on the encyclopedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• The page has been cleaned up and outside sources have been added to the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osartor (talk • contribs) 11:53, 12 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 - some unhelpful comments by one editor. I did note Metropolitan's attempt at providing references but agree with the consensus that notability via third party reliable sources has not been adequately established. --VS ^talk 11:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Klondike Kalamity

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

non-notable play; doesn't have speedy cat; author removed prod without explanation; COI:author is writer of subject of article; fails to assert notability - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment from author: Any chance we can hold off deleting the article on Klondike Kalamity?Hi, I'm realatively new to Wikipedia, I have no wish to offend anyone by starting an article about our stageplay, but I am trying to gather more info to flesh the article out.
  Would contributions from other sources help?
  I see you have no true article on old-time melodrama comedies per se, but in that admittedly narrow genre, Klondike is very well known.
  Thank you.
  Aatragon (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Gary Peterson, co-author of Klondike Kalamity, 02-18-2008 copied to this page: 11:25, February 19, 2008 by Aatragon (talk · contribs)

What is "speedy cat"? 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Aatragon (talk · contribs)

• Comment Plays are not under any obvious category for speedy deletion, therefore they must go through this deletion discussion process. --Dhartung | Talk 10:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This may not be the most famous play around, but a Google News search indicates that it does receive productions up to present times. I would give it the benefit of the doubt as to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. As Metropolitan90 says this does get performed and there are a few Google News Archive hits, mainly listings. Notability generally requires more in-depth coverage. The original publication dates before the internet era, though, so there are probably offline sources. This barely passes the heard-of-it test, though. --Dhartung | Talk 10:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - unless we can come up with some kind of reliable sources that discuss it, a few Googlehits is not enough to meet notability requirements. Surely the author ought to have some clippings from theater trade journals, etc.? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There are no notability requirements. Frankly, why is "notability" even relevant? In fact, can anyone provide a concrete description of what it is, or is it just a way to get out of having to admit up front that you don't like it/don't know anything about it/aren't interested in it? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --VS ^talk 06:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Orangemike. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no predjudice against a recreated article with outside sources. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Why should we wait until someone can provide sources to have an article on this? Sources aren't EVER needed up front; they're only needed after the fact, if someone is questioning a claim made in the article--and a failure to provide sources in that case only means you remove the statement, not the entire article. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • See WP:V Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 00:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • (a) verifiability is not the same as sourcing (b) we're not bound by "policies" anyway. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep — It exists, doesn't it? We can verify its existence, can't we? Why should anything else matter, then? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please see WP:EVERYTHING. --Dhartung | Talk 00:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Read it; it's bullshit--it runs counter to the entire purpose of an encyclopedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, as no evidence of notability has been demonstrated in some three weeks of AFD listing, an exceptionally generous span. --Dhartung | Talk 00:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability can be established by means of reliable sources. Deor (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete per WP:CSD#G4, recreation of deleted material. Contrary to what Travellingcari suggests, the new version was substantially identical to the previously deleted version. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vlado Kotnik

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

This has been PRODed a couple of times, but there's still a lack of evidence that he passes WP:PROF. In any language RS coverage is trivial and while the books exist, I don't see evidence that they're notable in the field TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 22:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• ETA: I'd venture a guess that the previous AfD might be someone with the same name as I don't see academic work labeled as 'cruft. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 22:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 10 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. The current lack of sources appears to be plausibly addressable and there's evidence that the band may meet WP:MUSIC. I'm closing this as no consensus because an outright "keep" close would be too strong given the current WP:V deficiencies. I will tag the article for sources & Wikipedia:WikiProject Slovakia with the hope that further work will abrogate any need for future deletion discussion. — Scientizzle 22:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lobby (Eurodance band)

Lobby (Eurodance band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Notability still not asserted. Google search produces just 10 reliable google hits. Roleplayer (talk) 15:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think you have to note that it doesn't appear that they were popular outside of Slovakia. If they did release their albums on a major slovak label that would make them notable. But I don't know anything about Slovakian music. -Drdisque (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment Lobby was one of (unfortunately only) 2 best dancefllor bands active in 1990s in Slovakia (2nd was band "D-Night"). It´s known in Slovakia, Czechia, Poland and Mexico. See e.g. Comments at:
    

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjoGBPAP8l0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IJqjfvXQMk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esTghfKM5sg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsP_hVlu_xU

etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addams71 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Band may well be notable, but it doesn't do much good if no one here can find any sources in a language we speak. One of the videos listed above is of a performance in what looks to me to be a TV audience; this suggests to me notability. On the other hand, the view count for all of the videos listed are quite low. Is this another language issue? Possibly. Again, I recognize that the band may well be notable, but if no one here can prove it, it's gotta go. faithless (^speak) 12:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• comment - Lobby's sk.wikipedia page was created same day by same author, Addams71; but perhaps that's because only now is anyone getting around to adding content on this genre over there? I'm on the fence about foreign artists with no English-language notoriety: on the one hand, I would personally love to see these articles in en.wikipedia, to offset our American/British bias. But on the other hand, perhaps sk.wikipedia (and cz. and pl. and es.wikipedia) is the only proper location, if those are the only languages where we will find any coverage of this group. At some point, en.wikipedia does probably have to ask "notable to whom?"; and as long as the band is covered in sk.wikipedia, the whole wikipedia project would still be doing a good job. Vote withheld for now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - nomination unfortunately appears to have systemic bias problems - David Gerard (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 22:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Deleting this article would harm our coverage of Slovakian music. Catchpole (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• The band may well be notable in Slovakia and perhaps even to the world at large but the article offers no proof of this. In fact, it offers no proof of anything at all as there are no sources whatever (YouTube videos are hardly proof of notability.) If appropriate references could be found in English (after all, this is English Wikipedia,) then perhaps it would meet WP:N standards, then it would only need to have extensive cleanup, a rewrite by someone fluent in English, and the insertion of some actual information about the band (as opposed to a couple of dates, the names of the members and a track listing of their albums and nothing else.) If all that were done it might be up to scratch, but for now it doesn't come close. The subject matter might be worth an article, but, at present, I think this treatment is too far from meeting standards to be worth saving; hence: delete. OlenWhitaker (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no predjudice against a recreated article with outside sources. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• delete - finally made up my mind. Leaving notability discussions aside, no third-party proof of the group's existence has been given. Wikipedia needs all articles to have at least some basic sourcing, at least to prove to some future editor that the article is not a hoax. Even some references or footnotes in Slovak would give an editor familiar in the language an opportunity to check sources. I really don't like taking this position when the article was created the same day it was sent to AfD, but the creator has had 7 days to improve the article to beat the rap. Unfortunately, it fails WP:RS and WP:V, so I vote delete. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. No reliable sources currently verify the notability of this band. Our verifiability policy is quite clear in indicating that "If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I tried looking myself, coupling the band's names with its albums. (LobbY2K seemed particularly promising as a less common search term.) I didn't come up with anything usable. The sister Slovakian article itself offers two sources; one primary, the other probably usable, but not sufficient unless it verifies that the band clearly meets WP:MUSIC. Alas, I can't read it. It's very 13th hour, but I'll try to find a Slovakian editor on the English Wikipedia who may be able to help out. I think deletion would be well within guidelines. But I can't personally opine one way or another without trying that, merely to avoid the systemic bias that David Gerard mentions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I have asked for translation assistance here. I will update, if the AfD remains open. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep—They pass WP:MUSIC criterion #5, as they released two of their albums on Sony's Dance Pool label. I have added that information to the article just now. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The editor I asked to translate kindly did so, and evidently the essence of that source is "It says it produced five albums (although here for example I see only four), and had a tour in Mexico, but in 2001 it had broken up. A former member has also said that Slovak radios stopped playing any dance music at the time of break-up and that they were several times nominated for various awards, but they have won none of them." (All this at the editor's talk page.) This would seem to be a reliable sourcing confirming an international tour. I don't know the notability of the awards. While Discogs is probably not a reliable source, given that they seem to accept any information "voted in", it does suggest that their releases are on a notable label. I can't defend it strongly, but I would believe that it could stand more time and hopefully if brought up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Slovakia may invite participation from editors who can find more and better sourcing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:41, 15 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 per WP:SNOW, nom's comment at bottom seems to indicate withdrawal. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1982 Football League Cup Final

1982 Football League Cup Final (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is more or less a test AfD. Virtually every football match gets press, do we want to cover them all? Where do we draw the line? There are no sources now, but I'm sure they can be found with relative ease. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Confused nomination. Cup finals will have plenty of sources. Catchpole (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The article can be greatly expanded, I only created it with such limited information because I am short on time, but I will add the relevant information in the future. Also there are numerous articles of this type on Wikipedia, some which are even at FA standard NapHit (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - as said above, it's the final of a major Cup tournament. As with FA Cup finals, the Football League Cup finals should all have an article on WP. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep annual championship games/series of notable leagues are accepted as notable for American sports, seems only fair that the same would be true for notable leagues in other countries. If I'm understand the nom correctly, to delete here would set the precedent that no single sporting even/series is notable enough for a game... which would be a disaster, deleting articles like Super Bowl III or 2004 World Series. --Rividian (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, looks like it's snowing. As a general question, does WikiProject Football have notability guidelines for individual matches? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:47, 9 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 A7. bibliomaniac15 23:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St. Valentine

I can find nothing about this band on the Web except another copy of this article (credited to Wikipedia). It is self-promotion: the page's creator, JerichoBoy, is a member of the putative band, Joseph Peter Currie. See Jericho (Rapper), JerichoBoy's only other contribution.

(Although I have been

• using Wikipedia for years,
• making occasional additions and corrections as my knowledge allows,
• and the owner, for my job, of a wikimedia-based wiki,

I am not an administrator or very familiar with Wikipedia policies (except respect and no POV), much less procedures. I originally put the above comment on the talk page of the article.) (By the way, the link on Wikipedia:AFD labeled "Add a new entry" leads directly to editing the AfD page, with no guidance for newbies like me.)

Thnidu (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7, utterly fails WP:MUSIC. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Article doesn't even pretend to be notable or to have sources/references. Obvious self-promotion. I dig the random exclamation mark in the middle of the 'current status' section, though.</sarcasm> OlenWhitaker (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the page needs to be blanked and kept as a redirect to Saint Valentine. OlenWhitaker (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that. --MahaPanta (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I third that. Ale_Jrb^talk 22:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete; Snowball Clause This article doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected stay from Speedy Delete, so there is no need to run it through the deletion process as of WP:SNOWBALL --MahaPanta (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Or just restore this diff. —BradV 22:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Jericho (Rapper), mentioned above, should also be deleted. It also fails WP:MUSIC. —BradV 23:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - it makes no assertion of notability, so it meets the WP:CSD. Ale_Jrb^talk 22:56, 9 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 except signature updates.

The result was DELETE. There is claim and counter-claim here, with people trying to be too pithy-one-sentence-clever and this reduces the signal information available to the closing admin. It strikes me clearly from reading the debate that this is viewed as original synthesis , and I do think that claim is largely justified, as there are various editorial excitements included in the text, such as "The town of Smallville survives its share of living hell as the U.S. Civil War erupts", as an arbitrary example. There is also a general view that this is excessively detailed for its subject material, is almost entirely in-universe and that it (demonstrably) is almost totally lacking in sources — effectively the three death-knells sounding from the complaints re WP:PLOT. Also, I observe that, whilst we are not bound by 'precedent', an example is given of a topically similar article that was deleted last year on similar grounds. The clear-cut sway of the debate here is to delete and the challenges to the policy-based complaints are insufficient to persuade the deleters to change. Two side notes: (i) the injunction is now lifted and (ii) the relisting was an unnecessary burden to AfD when there was plenty of debate included prior to the relisting. Relisting is not the pursuit of a trivial decision for the closing admin, it is for the extension of a debate so thin that not even a 'no consensus' can be meaningfully determined. Splash - tk 00:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Smallville timeline

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

There isn't a single source on the page, which also means there isn't one asserting why this topic needs its own article. Not to mention that it's nothing more than plot information. A lot, if not most, of the information in this article is basic episode information covered on the season pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I can't believe anybody actually spends timed writing (or reading) this, but it's no less strange or obsessive than many of the things on Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The lead already says it is based in original research, and the rest seems like a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT, i.e. no (sourced) analysis etc. General precedent shows that fictional timelines have a hard time surviving AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No sources, just plot and original synthesis based on the plot. Jay32183 (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR, WP:NOT, and it's also written entirely in-universe (not a deletion reason, but another bad thing about the article). TJ Spyke 12:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Probably better suited to a Smallville fansite, but at least it's somewhat useful to anyone new to the series who may look it up on Wikipedia to learn more about the show. 68.229.184.37 (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • All fictional articles must be based on the real world. Fictional timelines rarely, if ever, are written from a real world perspective. They are typically written from an in-universe perspective, which is not allowed for fictional topic articles. Regardless, if someone wants to know about Smallville, why aren't they looking at Smallville (TV series)#Season overview, or Smallville (season 1), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Smallville timeline is linked in one high traffic area, that's in the "Season overview" section of the main page. The only place that I can think of that it is linked in is the Smallville template at the bottom of every page. Without the knowledge that you'd gain by reading the season articles, this page doesn't make much sense, because it loosely ties particular episode elements together.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• I consider this barred by the Arb Com injunction,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2#Temporary_injunction], "For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction. Passed 4 to 0 at 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)."
This is an article dealing with video episodes, placing the plots on a timeline. I have discussed this with the nom on my talk page, and warned him about the injunction, though after he placed this nom. Having been warned, I ask him to withdraw this AfD. DGG (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Except the injunction talks about articles regarding television episodes and characters: this mentions them, but isn't about them. So, no actual justification, then? --Calton | Talk 14:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That was my line of thinking after I read the injunction, and why I didn't withdraw it afterward. This isn't about television episode articles, or character articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I consider that sophistry, though well-intentioned. The wording of "articles regarding episodes and characters", would I think cover anything involving them in a more than incidental way--a biography of an actor or writer would not be covered, one about the plot or characters of themes would be. Thats what this is, though its organized as a timeline. Look at any of the years: it gives that part of the bio of the fictional characters or the general story. Before the injunction, articles like this were typically argued against for just this reason: they duplicated the coverage of the plots of the episodes. I cannot enforce my view on this, and, being involved in these discussion on one side, would not take action as an administrator in any event. But I shall ask at arbcom. I'll give the link.

I've asked at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop#Apparent violation of injunction but I am not sure that was the right venue.DGG (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of sophistry: there's the attempt at finely argued legalisms and searching for loopholes to avoid addressing the actual issues on the table, and the bog-standard questions regarding complete lack of sources, original research, and just plain triviality. Or are end-runs around the core policies at the heart of Wikipedia acceptable? --Calton | Talk 18:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've said this before but I will repeat it for the sake repetition; I believe these types of AfD should continue on as normal, if the the result is delete/redirect/merge then this AfD should be tagged with Template:Fictwarn and the motion carried out once the injunction is over. I personally believe it is in the spirit of the injunction that this sort of stuff be included in the injunction but I'm not an arbcom member and I've heard it been said a few times that this sort of stuff is not strictly included in the injunction. --Sin Harvest (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources, original research, blah blah. --Calton | Talk 14:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, viz sourcing and more importantly notability. Referencing arbcom's injunction in this instance of clearly unnotable content is casuistical. Eusebeus (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Right, Sin Harvest, it is also appropriate to discuss the actual issue in the meantime. So, Keep -- as an appropriate summary article. Then notability needs to belong only to the subject as a whole, which is Smallville; treating an aspect of it in a separate subarticle article is really an editorial decision on whether or not to split an article. The material is sourcable, since it all comes from the various comics, etc--agreed that it should be sourced explicitly, but it is certainly sourceable if one knows the material. It is not OR, for OR requires synthesis--the assemblage of facts open to plain view, without interpreting them, is not OR, but the way all WP articles are constructed. The addition of the publication dates for the various events will deal with any question about RW content, also. Keep and improve. Most articles of this type need improvement. . DGG (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the OR claims refer to the time stamps, which is the basis of the article. I admit I don't know how Smallville works, but unless there are subtitles that say "Early 1840s" or "Late 1961", this article is originally researched (IMO). – sgeureka ^t•c 17:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • We also shouldn't be gaming the system to use WP:SS to not follow WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT. It is not simply an editorial decision to split an article into pieces that do not meet the inclusion criteria; that is not, nor has it have ever been, the intent of the summary style guideline. Jay32183 (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Well they are essentially contradicting policy/guidelines one says you should split the article when it gets too long while the other says you shouldn't have an article that is unable to assert notability on its own, so what happens when you have an article that has become too long yet the content can not assert its own notability after a split? --Sin Harvest (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
        • That should generally never be an issue with plot information, because Wikipedia isn't one big plot summary. Information split from an article is typically real world information (if it's a fictional topic) and thus probably sourced by secondary sources to begin with. Articles must have more than just plot information. This page is nothing but plot information and some editors' original research tying information from select episodes (and some information that wasn't in the show at all) together as if that was the show's intention. I don't know what page one could say this needed to be split from, since any important plot information is covered on its respective season page. Anything else is just indiscriminate information from the show itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Just to clarify what this page is actually "summarizing", since DDG says it's "an appropriate summary article". Starting from the beginning, the "Na-Man" story only consisted of about two episodes of the show. Countess Theroux was a side-story arc that lasted for most of season four, but ended with season four. The Dailey Planet bit is rather random. The building itself was only recently significant in the show's history, and the statement in this article about it being founded in 1775 is based purely on the comics (no relation to this television show). Ezra Small is someone that was only developed on one of the WB's viral sites, and has rarely - if ever - been mentioned on the show. Then we start getting this birth dates for characters in the show, yet birthdays have never really been discussed. They'd have birthdays on the show, but the actual date has never really been stated. It's original research to assume that the day the show airs is the day the fictional universe takes place in. You might be able to deduce years, but any more specific and you're stretching. It's even incorporating random recurring characters in the mix. Why not all characters that appear on the show? How is "Mid November, 2006: Raya visits Clark, and together they fight Baern, Raya dies battling Baern." an appropriate summary of the show? The seasons themselves are already summarized on the main page, and then the season pages break down each individual episode. This page not only has no feasible structure about what it chooses recall for the reader, but it's about 90% redundant to what is already in place.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This is basically a list sub-article. I say we let the Smallville Wikiproject fix it up. Ursasapien (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no Smallville Wikiproject, and if there was one, Bignole would probably be their most active editor. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

He's right. There isn't one, and I'm basically the most active editor for these pages. This page right here is run by anons. Regardless, still blatantly fails WP:NOT#PLOT. There was no reason to split this stuff off originally, and I've already explained how most of the stuff on the page is hardly even notable in the series itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Blatant violation of WP:PLOT, not to mention WP:NOR, as the lead section openly admits. I don't think timelines for fictional universes are generally suitable for Wikipedia, and this one certainly fails policy. Maybe move it to the Smallville wikia if it isn't already there?  Paul  730 14:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If one person is the only major editor for the related articles, then perhaps it shows that others need to edit also. It's OWNership to decide by oneself on how to organise things, and try to delete the pages that do it differently. One person may not feel a particular arrangement useful. I find it helps the understanding of the material, though those more familiar find the more detailed accounts sufficient. Another example of how parts of the encyclopedia without sufficient general attention can be unrepresentative of encyclopedic needs. DGG (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Page statistics. There isn't really anyone that stands out. One editor with 18 edits, and another with 6, then it starts trickly down to just single edits. The editor with 18 edits hasn't visited the page since March 2007. If you took out all the OR, there isn't much left that isn't already stated elsewhere.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - unsourced, non-notable, useless, fancrufty - one of those. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete IMHO this isn't under the injunction, but since the case should close pretty soon, the point will soon be moot. That said, these sort of "timelines", like theBuffyverse chronology that was deleted last year, are original research, trying to tie together primary sources in a novel way, creating a new synthesis of primary source materials. --Phirazo 18:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete 100% per reasoning of the nominator. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Smallville on Wikipedia's most active contributor. –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Coherent, well-organized, discriminate, verifiable sub-article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Not a single source constitutes "veriifiable"? I can point to several things in this timeline that never occurred in the show at all, so saying the show verifies it won't hold water. See my comment above where I list all the problems with the content and its "verifiability".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Anyone can rent DVDs of the show to verify the information. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Ok, you must have missed the part where I said, "I can point out several things in this timeline that never occurred in the show at all." That means, since there are no sources in the article, and the events didn't occur on the show itself, you cannot verify by citing some episode (i.e. This article is not verifiable).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
        • If there is anything that is inaccurate, then please do remove it, but considering that the show exists on TV and on DVD much of its is very much so verfiable. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
          • That's what this AfD will do. Regardless, I've already explained how this "timeline" loosely ties events that barely had anything to do with one another on the show itself. Just because it happens in the show doesn't make it relevant to the show's fictional timeline. If John Doe appears on the show, then John Doe's personal history is not relevant to this timeline. Heck, the first section ties the person that left the information in the caves, with the person that left the crystals, when at no point in the show did they ever say they were one in the same.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - despite undoubted sincerity and good faith of nomination, anyone who nominates something knowingly in the face of an ArbCom injunction is showing prima facie evidence of judgement so awful as to suggest deleting all nominations from this nominator, to avoid wasting precious AFD time - David Gerard (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I nominated it before I knew what the injunction was, and how "strict" it was regarding merging, deleting or anything to do with fiction related articles. So, "keeping" an article just because you disagree with my AfD'ing something fiction when there was an injunction in place (one, again I add, that I wasn't aware of in its entirety, having not read the ArbCom till after I AfD'd this article) is rather immature. You're basically making you opinion to keep the article, not on the article's merit of deletion, but rather on your opinion that I should not AfD any fiction related article to begin with. Just to point out, DGG did ask if this timeline was covered by the injunction, and the only two people to respond to him agreed that it was not covered by the injunction.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Secondly, there is no such thing as "wasting AfD time". If something doesn't have a snow ball's chance in hell of being deleted (i.e. the AfD was made in extreme bad faith) then that is evident from the start and the AfD can be quickly closed. If the AfD has merit (and the numerous deletion votes suggests that this does, regardless of the fact that any outcome won't be put into action until the injunction is removed), then you cannot "waste time" reviewing the article. It is YOUR decision to review an article based on the concerns of the nominating editor. If you feel your time was "wasted" reading it, that's an opinion and probably would weigh on your decision to support a deletion of the article. Given that AfD is a community based decision process, and not part of some systematic program that would require "time well spent", there is nothing to waste. You cannot even claim that it is a waste of time for the Admin closing the AfD to read all that is being discussed, because there is a big banner at the top of this page that says whatever the outcome, the page cannot be deleted/merged/etc etc until the injunction is over. So, the "closing" Admin can simply walk away from the article, or come give their own opinion. The only positive thing about this AfD existing in the face of the injunction is the extended time it gets to find more neutral opinions about the article's existence, and thus achieving a more clear consensus about the outcome.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually a lot of time is needlessly lost on AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • An "essay" against deletion in general and how deleting an article "wastes" the time of those that spent working on it, not about "wasting AfD time". There is a difference between what you just cited and what David was referring to (or at least, what I understood David to be referring to).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Every second myself or other editors who do and are able to find references for articles have to waste arguing to keep articles in AfDs that for whatever reason someone does not personally like is time not spent finding referencing and improving articles. If the article is not a hoax, copy vio, or personal attack, then there's almost never a reason for deletion that benefits our value as a reference. Thus, a tremendous amount of energy is misplaced that could be used more constructively. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
          • • Do you think that I sit here all day trying to delete articles? I've turn 3 television articles into Featured Articles. I've turned a fictional character into a featured article. I've been working my Wiki butt off to develop several other articles, so please don't flash that sanctimonious attitude at me. I put in my time in developing articles, and when I find articles that I truly believe do not, and will not, meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, then I do what I must to see that it is rectified, in some way shape for form.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • Then I encourage you to focus more on helping to improve and expand other articles rather than attempting to diminish other editors' contributions and efforts. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Sorry, but I improve and expand more articles than you could possibly imagine. I do my part, trust me. How about you realize that this is an encyclopedia, and not a fan house where we should have an article on every single minute piece of information in the world (regardless of how notable or important it is anywhere).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Per the Five pillars, we are an encyclopeia AND a specialized encyclopedia and almanac. We are NOT paper. Our founder said we are trying to provide the sum total of human knowledge. If it is important or notable anywhere and is factually accurate there is no reasonable or non-elitist rationale not to have an article on it. We should not discriminate against our contirbutors and readers. Especially because people donate money to Wikipedia. Thus, we should tolerant with articles we don't particularly personally care for. Time is much better spent improving and building articles we do care about than attempting to diminish other editors and readers' experiences on our project. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and allow the Smallville wiki project to decide how best this information should be presented. Catchpole (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• A quote from above: "There is no Smallville Wikiproject, and if there was one, Bignole would probably be their most active editor." – sgeureka ^t•c 22:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Let's wait until this Thursday's episode when (I'm NOT making this up, check the TV listings) Pete Ross (Sam Jones III) returns to the show and gets superpowers after using kryptonite chewing gum.... history in the making? Mandsford (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you being serious, or just trying to lighten the mood? That episode will have nothing to do with this timeline.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  I was just trying to lighten the mood. I'm gathering that I'm mistaken about this being a new episode, so people have already seen it and factored it in. Once the new, post-strike episodes begin, then of course every new chapter adds to the continuity that the viewers have been following since 2001. Mandsford (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, the information is handled in the Smallville episode by seasons articles. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Tommorrow per nom. The injunction will be vacated by then. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That is not a compelling reason to delete this encyclopedic article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Please read the section carefully. Though it isn't encourage to say "per nom", it clearly states: "That said, nominations vary considerably. In instances where the nomination includes a well-formulated argument, is extensive in its reasoning and clearly addresses the major issues, expressing simple support per nom may be sufficient." If Jack Merridew believes that the argument was well formed and any major issues addressed, then his "per nom" vote is in support that my argument is sufficient.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • In this instance it appears to be just a vote, especially based on evidence from the ArbCom case. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
        • • First off, it's probably better to assume good faith with Jack's intentions, then to insinuate that he doesn't already know that Wiki isn't a democracy. That being said, I inferred that Jack made the reference about the ArbCom closing because he looked at the page and assume that there was consensus to delete the timeline (and since this page has been relisted twice during the injunction - as per the rules of the injunction for any AfD involving fictional information, it's probably clear to say that not much more time is necessary to leave this page listed given its already 14 days on the AfD page).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
            • I have seen statements outright made in the ArbCom to the effect of not liking or knowing about these sorts of articles and that alone being the rationale for wanting them deleted, i.e. regardless of the article's merits. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but in order to have consensus we cannot exclude editors willing to write or interested in reading articles they deem encyclopedic just because any of disagree. If the article is not a hoax, copy vio, or personal attack, it is more likely than not consistent with either a general or specialized encyclopedia and the problems identified usually fall under Wikipedia:SOFIXIT rather than outright removal. Even in a worse case scenario, because editors obviously believed the topic worthwhile we would then at least redirect the article, since editors have and do use Smallville timeline as a search phrase, but again that would NOT mean deleting it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• The article has almost no traffic as far as editing is concerned, there has been approximately 100 edits to the page since its inception (with the leading editor at 18 edits not having edited the article for over a year). Ignoring how many people have edited the page, lets do a simple traffic test. The timeline has had about 5000 hits. By comparison, Smallville (TV series) has about 264,000 hits. Regardless of traffic, there isn't a policy that says "if people creat an article for it, and it isn't copyvio then it should stay". This page is a clear violation of WP:PLOT (which is a policy). Not to mention the violations of WP:NOR. Now, can you cite a policy that says this page should stay? I've not come across any real world information regarding the "timeline" itself, but, if you can find it before this AfD closes then I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination. That is, real world information that has context for the timeline. Putting something from one of the season pages there that has nothing to do with the timeline won't cut it. This is why timelines are generally deleted (see the above link for all the timeline AfDs), because it is next to impossible to provide any real world coverage, context, information, what have you in order to satisfy WP:PLOT.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It has notability to people in the real world and is associated with a recognizable show. The page does NOT violate anything as far as can be seen. And as it does not express any kind of argument, it is not original research. 5,000 hits sounds like a lot for a sub-article and suggests that if anything a redirect without deletion could be a compromise, but I see no valid reason for outright removing the article or any kind of gain for doing so. Having the article means that at some point it can be improved and can serve as a reference for anyone interested. Not having the article means that any possible benefit from having it is lost. By the way, discussion about this particular AFD has apparently started at the ArbCom. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Have you read WP:PLOT? This article is nothing but plot summaries. Secondly, please read all of what I've said above (at the top). I have explained the original research part of this article, I shouldn't have to repeat myself all over again. Not to mention the lack of sourcing for all the information that doesn't appear on the television show at all.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • As a subarticle of a larger article, it does not fail Plot. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Sub-article of what parent article exactly? Because, last time I checked, the 7 season pages where the sub-article for all the plot information. Per WP:PLOT, "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." -- No where in that policy does it says that sub-articles don't have to have real world content. Even WP:FICT only talks about splittin off articles when there is a size issue, which...since I'm not sure what article this ever split from to begin with, there isn't a size issue anywhere. To summarize FICT for you, "Like all Wikipedia articles, spinout articles are edited in accordance with our policies and guidelines; specifically, content in spinout articles must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources. Such sources can include primary sources - such as the work of fiction itself or commentary from the author or other involved parties - in addition to real-world content from secondary sources." -- "In addition" is the key word that should be looked at. That means that you cannot spin-out pure plot information for size reasons for 2 reasons: (a) You must follow the policies and guidelines we already have (see WP:PLOT) and (b) you need real-world content (see the quote I just gave you for spinning out articles on their own).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
          • It is a sub-article of the main article on the series and puts the chronology of the show in a coherent context. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
            • It's an unnecessary sub-article that uses original research to put events of the show in an order that some editors see fit. It is not supported by a single source. You can cite an episode for a particular event, but you cannot cite an episode for the tying of information together, because they haven't done that in the series. Again, please read WP:PLOT and WP:FICT, which both work counter to what you are saying. No real world content in this article, regardless of the original research. The article ties very minor things together, so saying it "puts the chronology of the show in a coherent context" is not accurate. First, the summary section on the main page does a fine just of chronicling the events of each season just fine. Second, this page includes things that have no bearing on the show itself as far as understanding what is going on in the show. Last, Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching the show. If you want to know what happened in a show, go watch it. This is the last that needs to be said, because you and I are just wasting our breath debating back and forth with each other, and we're doing nothing but taking up space on this AfD page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
              • While I am still far from persuaded that the article should not be kept, I agree that we are indeed using time up that could be better spent improving articles. Have a pleasant afternoon! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:18, 10 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ZHLT

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

Non-notable software. Some counterarguments were given on the talk page, but they make no reference to policy or guideline and I see no independent coverage of this software in any reliable sources. The article was created by a ZHLT developer. Jfire (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salix alba (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• delete Lots of fourm posts, and trivial sources, but nothing meets WP:RS. --Salix alba (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • weak delete following changes bellow, I'd be happy to change to keep if a source could be found. I did try some google searches but I only found a good number of blog posts. --Salix alba (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Pretty strong delete Lots of problems. Somewhat of an ad, no links, and not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm40 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This article has no references and much of it looks like original research/personal opinion. It is also written like an advertisement or perhaps a love letter to the software in question asserting that it is a "shining example[,]" a "household name[,]" and "higher quality than the original game company[,]" all of which are unsupported statements of personal opinion. It also contains obvious speculation that it has "probably been used for 85%+ of all maps released for HL1[,]" again with no sources cited. It further fails to establish notability. Just because a particular game is notable, doesn't automatically mean that a given after-market editing hack program is itself notable. ZHLT gets a number of ghits but they all seem to be either directly related to the software (primary sources,) or niche sites; I found no significant, reliable, independent, secondary source coverage as per WP:N. OlenWhitaker (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The new version of the article is a considerable improvement in terms of style. The subjective info has been removed and the article sticks to facts which is much better, but there are still no WP:RS compliant sources (or indeed any at all) to either verify the article's contents or establish notability. By a strict interpretation of the policies, this article should be out...however...Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and it is true that the spirit of the policy, not its letter, is of paramount importance. The question of "notable to who?" must be considered carefully in such a case since everything is notable to someone and not notable to another. For a niche item like this software, I realize that it may be of interest to a fair number of people, but that that fact may be difficult to prove. I would, therefore, change my vote to keep if just one article or review about the software (not just mentioning it, about it) were added. I'm not asking for the front page of the New York Times, I'd even be happy with an online gaming mag here. Does that seem fair? OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 13:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 13:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems eminently fair to me, Olen, and I will happily withdraw the nomination if at least one source evincing substantial coverage is found. Jfire (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have seen them discussed in a gaming magazine several years ago. I will try to find coverage, although it might take some time. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

After some searching, I don't think it will be possible to find this or any other substantial reference in a reasonable amount of time. I have found a lot of mentions on a variety of mapping and gaming news sites, but they tend to be short blurbs and not substantial coverage. Most are along the lines of "hey mappers, ZHLT version X has been released and implements new features YZW. Check it out at the official website (link)". Mappers are apparently not the target audience of magazines. I will be on the lookout for substantial coverage - just don't get your hopes up. )-: 98.203.237.75 (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Yeah wow when I wrote those arguments on the talk page, it was to explain notability. Although the statements are true, I didn't expect what I wrote to be incorporated into the article itself. If they are in the article they will need to be sourced. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep ZHLT is highly notable, as you will find if you talk to anyone in the game modding community. I believe this is an example of people who don't know anything about a subject unintentionally displaying their systematic bias. I gave a series of arguments on the talk page as to why ZHLT is notable, which should be read before rejecting this subject as non-notable. The nominator mentioned that I did not bring WP policy into my points, and yeah that is true. Please give me a bit more time to research WP policy more carefully so that I may cite it (if appropriate).

• OlenWhitaker takes issue with the style of the article and lack of sources. That is a problem, but should be dealt with by improving the article instead of deleting it. In any case, if the article is deleted, it should be done so in such a way that it can be easily re-created and written in the appropriate style. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I now have read the policies and guidelines referenced, and believe I can properly address the points raised with respect to WP policy. (note: I am not a developer of ZHLT, just a former mapper that used it)

1. NPOV - I have edited the article to remove a lot of the POV people here were objecting to. This is an ongoing process and further improvements are welcome, of course. Furthermore, the article should not be deleted on this basis alone, as WP:DEL states, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion... A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem.".
2. Verifiability - WP:V states that "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source" (emphasis mine). This is not a controversial article where strict sourcing is required! It is an informative article detailing a technical tool, the details of which are sourced in the websites linked. No one is likely to "challenge" the fact that ZHLT implemented the null texture, or that there is an SDK for Unix. The one potentially "controversial" piece of information (after my recent edits today) is in the 2nd paragraph which talks about how widespread the tool is. No one who has ever mapped for HL or GoldSrc would challenge this statement, and a few minutes of googling around will confirm its validity. However, if those here believe that this statement is controversial, the offending paragraph can be easily removed without deleting the whole article!
3. Reliable Sources - Going by the "letter of the law", this is a tough point to refute. The article is not sourced by WP:RS sources, this is true. It would also be very hard to track down the magazine articles and so forth that have mentioned ZHLT. However, what I gather from reading these policies is that the spirit of WP:RS is to stop people from adding things that are blatantly false, and serve as an arbiter where facts are disputed. It was not intended to weed out simple obvious facts, otherwise every article in the whole of WP would need a citation after every sentence, and the project would grind to a halt. In this case, I ask that we use some common sense here, as the WP:RS page advises us to do. In terms of policy, I would note that WP:V is a policy, whereas WP:RS is a guideline, and WP:V states that reliable sources only need to be used for points that are likely to be challenged. As mentioned above, I think the bulk of the information in this article is very unlikely to be challenged after the edits I recently made.
4. Notability - I think that a lot of people here have the wrong impression about this. ZHLT is not "yet another" random program used by a few hackers to make minor edits to some computer game. It is a tool of major importance to the mapping community, as I explain on the talk page, and it has a somewhat unique and interesting development history which I would like to expand upon if the article is kept. This is probably the most difficult thing to convince non-modders/mappers of - we have hundreds of tools and programs, and without doing a bit of mapping it would would be hard to understand why a particular compile tool is important while a certain model viewer program is not, etc. To a non-mapper they all look the same, and this creates a form of bias in articles about technical subjects. All I can say is that I am a mapper, and after Valve Hammer Editor, this tool is the second most important program in mapping for Half-Life/Counterstrike/GoldSrc/etc, and has had considerable influence on the entire mod scene. I would also point out that, according to WP:N, a lack of reliable sources does not imply a lack of notability. There they state, "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, that does not necessarily mean the topic is not notable." This is one of those edge cases where a subject is notable, but not of the type that tends to get covered in news stories, etc.

• I hope that some of you will at least reconsider your positions after reading this information and looking at the modified article. Thanks. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Tiptoety ^talk 19:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Even after the rewrite, this doesn't seem to really assert any notability criteria. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources, no assertion of notability. Even if everything in the article could be sourced, it still wouldn't be an encyclopedic subject. Quale (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Question. I am still an admin and/or editor at several big mapping sites. If I wrote a solid article and published it there, would that qualify as a legitimate source, or would that be considered a conflict of interest? I could also probably convince another editor to write such an article if writing it myself would pose a problem. These are neutral sites that got huge readership from ~1999-2004, but are waning now. I would take care not to present false information (as always). What do you think? Thanks. 98.203.237.75 (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep as bundled. I would recommend that individual articles are nominated by themselves, as some may have slipped through the cracks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SwordSearcher

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

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

Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BibleTime (2nd nomination), which were speedied as re-created material, however per the closing admin, these do not appear to be. However they suffer from the same issues so I'm bundling again as a part of an effort to get notability consensus as a means to see if a category or article is needed. All of these have copious ghits that are howtos, forum discussions, blogs and mailing list. RS issues are raised on an individual basis next to each nom:

SwordSearcher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (main nom), trivial RS coverage and 'award' is an internet poll.

WORDsearch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), problematic search due to the game of word searches but iltering the results are trivial mentions in connection the general mention of Bible related software.

E-Sword (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), a few false positives but nothing that establishes notability.

ETA: this one has apparently been deleted before albeit more than a year ago. Appears to still have the same issues TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 22:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

MacSword (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), false positives and trivial mentions, no notability

Online Bible (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), problematic search due to title but filtering with creator turned up nothing. I tried to clean this one up yesterday but there was nothing substantial.

GnomeSword (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), RS coverage limited to press releases.

Palm Bible Plus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), apparently a fork and a non-notable one at that.

Bible Reader for Palm (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), apparently the parent basis of Palm Bible Plus, but no evidence of notability

The CrossWire Bible Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), it's work may be notable but it doesn't appear to be.

Blue Letter Bible (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), non-notable

There are a couple of others on the list that I didn't include because on the surface, they appear as if they could be notable. If anyone feels different adn wants to bundle, go right ahead. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I don't know why the closing admin before didn't do it. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep No reason to delete - its had millions of downloads, and there are far more unnotable pages on WP that should be dealth with first.

DarthSidious (talk) 10:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)DarthSidious

• Keep No reason to delete - "some" of these are notable and the bundle idea is also ill advised. E-Sword particularly is used by many, many thousands. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment, used by thousands!notability and other poor articles existing is not a valid reason for keep. Bundling is perfectly acceptable for articles who are up for deletion for the same reason rather than flooding AfD. Please note that the two above are involved with the article and may have a COI TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: The problem with submitting a mass deletion is that each article has to be defended, or else all are deleted.
  • Swordsearcher: Shareware:
  • WORDsearch: commercial: This was one of the first, if not first commercial Bible Study Software vendor. The article needs a major rewrite.
  • E-Sword: Gratis/freeware: This is the most popular Bible Study Software in history.
  • MacSword: GNU GPL: http://www.cmug.org/articles/Update11-06.html and http://macministry.org/Software/Software.html provide a synopsis of the state of Bible Study software for Macintosh.
  • Online Bible: Article needs a rewrite. This is one of the early gratis bible study programs. (Most public domain material in bible study software traces its origins to this source.)
  • GnomeSword:GNU GPL: This is included in Ubuntu Christian Edition. It is included in the repository of at least half a dozen Linux distributions.
  • The CrossWire Bible Society: This organization is extremely publicity shy. They are also extremely reticent about what they do. This article should be rewritten to describe the front ends to their API. (JSword, BibleTime, GnomeSword, MacSword.)
  • Blue Letter Bible: Website: This was one of the early websites for Bible Study. jonathon (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, none of which meet notability guidelines. Being new, early, commercial or shareware!notability. They require reliable source coverage to establish that, none of these have that. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: this kind of bundling is simply wrong. FWIW the google search suggesting lack of notability of Crosswire Bible Society is grossly misleading. Look at this one: [3]. Gnomesword and Bibletime are in every big Linux distribution, e-sword has a huge world of external modules and the rest has been discussed above by the editor above Refdoc (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, unfortunately ghits!notability. They require reliable source coverage to establish that, none of these have that. Per WP:BUNDLE there is absolutely nothing wrong with bundling related items for discussion. It doesn't mean the same action has to be taken on each, but currently they all fail WP:N TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment There can be little doubt that software use for Bible study is a weighty enough subject for WP. Within the more popular/semi-academic part of the software BibleWorks, e-Sword and The CrossWire Bible Society with its various programmes (which indeed should be merged into The Sword Project) are the most relevant of their respective classes - proprietary, shareware and F/LOSS. The evidence is there and has been submitted. Refdoc (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment so merge the lot of it into Bible software and discuss them there since none have been proven to be independently notable via reliable sources. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment you have a bizarre notion of notability. Once we have established that Bible Software is a matter worth writing an article about, the evidence available is perfectly sufficient to describe these programmes as most important of the the relevant catagegories and expand on them with an article. Notability is not an absolute measure, but needs to be seen in the context of the overall matter. Wikipedia is no paper. Refdoc (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Response Indeed I do, I define notability by Wikipedia's own guidelines. Bizarre isn't it. Wikipedia isn't paper but that doesn't mean everything has an article. There need to be standards and those include notability, including WP:WEB and WP:CORP, neither of which any of these appear to meet. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It would have been far smarter to suggest merging The Sword Project, The CrossWire Bible Society, GnomeSword, BibleTime, JSword, and their other front ends into one article. Before it was deleted, Notability guidelines for Software included "being part of a major distro". As such, the Sword Project front ends do qualify as "notable". Their publicity shy attitude has hurt them in getting reviews. None the less, their software has been reviewed in Christian Computing, amongst other media outlets. (They give the other person all of the credit, even if the other person did nothing,but accept the glory.) It is the only Bible Software that is distributed under the GNU GPL. The net effect of that, is that it won't show up in market research reports of Bible Study Software.(These reports only look at commercial distribution, and since these programs are gratis, even if 10,000,000,000 copies had been distributed, they would have zero marketshare.)jonathon (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Under the old software notability guidelines, the product with the highest number of distributed copies in its category, was accepted as being "notable". e-Sword has had 7,000,000+ downloads to date, with roughly 5,000 CDs distributed each month in the Philippines alone. By comparison QuickVerse has distributed 1,000,000 units since its inception, and Logos Research Systems has distributed roughly 2,000,000 units since 1986. I'll also point out that e-Sword was deleted for failing to adhere to WP:WEB requirements, without explaining why software has to have the same notability requirements as a website. It did pass the notability requirements for software. The previous AfD was because it was an add, but that AfD was never acted on.Furthermore, when it was renominated, the nominator stated that it was no longer an add.jonathon (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Whilst a poor article is not a reason to keep, it is not a reason to delete. Rather, the appropriate action is to rewrite the article so that it is a quality article. Something that these ten could easily become, if an editor were to do so. (Budget roughly 100 hours to research each article.1,000 hours for all ten articles.)jonathon (talk)

• Unbundle: The problem with submitting a mass deletion in this case is that they're hardly related and discussion of their deletion is thus necessarily confused and convoluted. It's also pretty clear, from WP:BUNDLE that bundling is inappropriate in this context as none of the given examples are reasonably similar to the situation here (and to quote the guidelines, if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, don't). For the most part, these are disparate products and organizations, whose sole connection is that they pertain to the same software genre or in some cases have similar names. That is insufficient grounds for bundling, per WP:BUNDLE. So, to reiterate the statement of Refdoc, "this kind of bundling is simply wrong." -- While ghits != notability, neither do Google News hits == notability or their lack and neither are ghits inherently not reliable sources. Haphazard Google News searches are especially unhelpful. Just do a search for reviews associated with these terms and you should get plenty of hits on most of them.
  • Swordsearcher: Delete-- genuinely no RSes out there that I find.
  • WORDsearch: Keep-- needs rewrite desperately, but an adequately notable company. Other reasonable GN searches, considering the merger a few years ago between WORDsearch & Epiphany Software: Bible Explorer 3, Epiphany Software. Some other pertinent RS articles: 1, 2, etc.
  • E-Sword: Keep-- The article itself cites sufficient RSes to establish its own notability. QED. If you feel the need for more, Google some reviews, search Google News and drop the hyphen, etc.--you know, standard Google usage stuff.
  • MacSword: Redirect to The SWORD Project. (Sort of a no-brainer. Should have been the original suggestion, as with the other two below.)
  • Online Bible: Keep-- plenty of articles, howtos, reviews online--the article should really cite more than just the one. Unfortunately, Online Bible's true notability lies largely in the past, especially the 90's, where it wouldn't show up in a Google News search. So, I guess if notability is only temporary, then this article should be deleted.
  • GnomeSword: Redirect to The SWORD Project.
  • The CrossWire Bible Society: Redirect to The SWORD Project.
  • Blue Letter Bible: Delete-- genuinely no RSes out there that I find.
  • Bible Reader for Palm: Merge/Redirect with Palm Bible Plus. The latter is more notable (IMO) & has a wider user base (in my estimation).
  • Palm Bible Plus: Keep-- Fairly notable. Extensive review. Brief review. Both this and the previous software get occasional mentions in Mobile Ministry Magazine. Etc. --Oskilla (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • • Comment you raise some valid points but please keep in mind WP:RS, E-Sword is sourced through its own website and documentation, neither of which are considered reliable per the guidelines. That's the issue with a number of other sources, including howtos, forums and blogs, they do not meet the reliable source guidelines, which is why ghits!notability. And a note on bundle, similar articles been bundled before with absolutely no drama. They're related in that they're relatively non-notable (and for the same reason) software. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I am not opposed to unbundling these AfDs, although I don't see what harm bundling the majority of these articles has done. However, if we are to unbundle these articles, "point of reference" links should be placed in this series of AfDs so users may cross reference each of the articles together for easier consensus. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't intend to unbundle at this point unless an admin or an uninvolved editor says it's too hard to judge them. I don't see anything wrong with the point by point and it saves copy/pasting the same rationale in a number places, as has been done/been needed to do across the recent student union AfDs. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:49, 11 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. Remarkably frank author deletion request here. - RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Massively Collaborative Self Governance

Massively Collaborative Self Governance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Proposal for a new form of government. Article by user:Kevinstonge who has for some reason removed the fact that the theory was first proposed by Kevin St.Onge in January, 2008. Pure original research. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - self-confessed original research, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propounding new theories. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - ideology/abstraction/concept that is likely extrapolated from the references - meets WP:NOR. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. OlenWhitaker (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete; Snowball Clause Due to self-confessed original research, this article doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected stay from Deletion, so there is no need to continue to run it through the deletion process as of WP:SNOWBALL --MahaPanta (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This, to me, appears to be someone thinking up a form of government based on the way Wikipedia is run, and unexpectedly finding an "example" in the real world. Also, the weather forecast for this AFD seems to be heavy snow...J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Normally "Also, the weather forecast for this AFD seems to be heavy snow" would be WP:CRYSTAL , but in this case, you make a valid, yet funny reason this article should already be deleted. --MahaPanta (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• My apologies - you all are correct, this is not encyclopedic knowledge--it is original research and suffers from significant lack of notability. Kevinstonge (talk) 09:47, 10 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Branded Marketing

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

Although there are plenty of refs in the article, none of them provide significant coverage, as required by the guideline on notability. the product they release, the pr1macard could be notable, but this parent company seems not to be Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Reads like advertisement/press relece, not formated or referanced according to wiki guidelines. an artcle with that much information about a company that hasn't relieced any products gives me the heebie jeebies to begin with, but I smell a marketing sceme.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The impact of this product and company on the hispanic and latino market is expected to be profound, since they are one of the first to target immigrants and low-income population in a way that will educate the community and build their financial credibility. They do not yet have much press or attention outside the little that the hispanic press has given their announced product release, but they will be releasing their product in April and will have more references at that point. In the meantime, there is no real contact information or advertising in this article and I have tried to introduce the research about the latino and hispanic market to illustrate the credibility of the market segment and products that address that segment. I am not an employee of this company but was asked to review their material and write an article for them since they did not know how to use Wikipedia 24.119.19.52 (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)SuObijiski

• Comment um...if you where asked to review their material and write an article for them on wikipedia you are in fact advertising for them...your wages and where they come from are your consern, however those actions are incompatable with wikipeida policy. See WP:SPAM to better understand what was violated. wikipedia isn't a website to get free advertising Coffeepusher (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Googling this is utterly impossible but the thing reads like a prospectus. Mangoe (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. The article provides references, but none of them can be used to establish notabilty. References 1 through 7 are not reliable (Company's own website, etc.). The Business Week (reference 8) article doesn't even mention the name of the company so I'm not sure why it's even there. Reference 9 is just a pointer to a website. That's not even an article, and there's doesn't appear to be any information about the company on the site. And reference 10 isn't about the company either. -- Whpq (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand all the points made but I must say that I am surprised at the cynicism expressed here. The company is trying to highlight the hispanic and latino market and offer a valuable service. I recognize that they have no real verifiable references or credibility because they have yet to launch the product and I advised them that they probably need to wait for Wiki to catch up to them as other businesses focus on this market and it gains more noteriety. However, having seen a lot of PR and marketing hype in my life and understanding that this type of publication has to be accompanied by a lot of contact and sales info in order to be effective in attracting customers I am not sure how we can look at this as marketing or a prospectus. A prospectus by its nature is meant to attract investors and this company already HAS partners like Mastercard so they are clearly not looking for investors. While I can certianly take your points and understand if you delete this article, I suppose I cannot understand the cynicism in the comments. I suppose it comes from looking at a lot of Wiki spam. I agreed to take this on as a writer because I believed that the shift in societal focus and ethnic education was worthy of comment. I also understand that Wiki has its guidelines which at times feel to me a bit like the opinion and relevance police and in an environment that was created to pool knowledge and information for public consumption, that often seems at odds to me. Su Obijiski (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)SuObijiski

Could you expand on your statement "...I advised them that they probably need to wait for Wiki to catch up to them as other businesses focus on this market and it gains more noteriety." I am reading this as indicating you were asked by the company to create the article on their behalf. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

S/He was "I am not an employee of this company but was asked to review their material and write an article for them since they did not know how to use Wikipedia" comment from IP above.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:44, 12 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 Although the request by the subject of the article cannot of itself precipitate a deletion, it is not a wholly irrelevant comment; the article in any event does not make a good case for notability.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony.bradbury (talk • contribs)

[edit] Patrick Muirhead

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

A former BBC Radio 4 continuity announcer and newsreader who then had a brief career on television in the Channel Islands. This makes a dubious claim to notability; currently running a shop which is clearly not notable. The subject does not wish to have an article. There are WP:BLP concerns and under past precedent, the views of the subject of an article are legitimate to take into account where their notability is borderline. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by article subject placed on the article [4]: I am Patrick Muirhead. I wholeheartedly support the proposed deletion of this article. I was not a celebrity, did not create this article in the first place and do not wish to see details of my life and career online, especially since so many commentators on my previous media career are either illiterate, partisan or simply ill-informed. Please remove it. Thank you.

• Keep I don't think he would have written in saying he doesn't want publicity, yet give an extensive interview to the Times. The Times article denotes notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr Norton

If you have any doubts about my authenticity, email me via my shop's website or phone the telephone number you will find there, and I will give you my personal assurance that I do not wish to have an article about me here. Thank you.

PM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.150.190 (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This is a very tricky case. There doesn't seem to have been much written about him until he quit Radio 4 and tried TV, and then he got coverage for walking away from TV and briefly trying to get back on Radio 4 before looking for other lines of work and badmouthing the media. There's this in the Guardian, and a handful of pieces in the Times, but he also writes for the Times so it isn't independent. I'm inclined toward a courtesy delete as barely notable to begin with, and only notable for his downfall as it were. --Dhartung | Talk 21:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  The comment above perfectly illustrates my point. At no point did I attempt "to get back on Radio 4". I was only too glad to get OUT of Radio 4 after seven years of being exploited and under-valued. I would agree: barely notable. I'm just a country shopkeeper these days. Let's leave it at that. PM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickmuirhead (talk • contribs) 22:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• The Times indicates otherwise. Not that you seem unhappy with the outcome. --Dhartung | Talk 00:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The subject of this article sent me two emails requesting that I desist in editing the article. The first email followed a minor edit by me in which I wiki-linked continuity announcer and incorrectly changed gentlemen's to gentlemens' (sic) (probably this is the illiterate contribution referred to above). The subject reverted this contribution in its entirety. Subsequently I restored the page to a previous version in which the word "co-presenter" replaced "presenter" and the external link to the subject's website was removed from the body of the article and placed in the external links section where it belongs. The subject conveyed in the text of his emails that neither I nor anyone else was qualified to edit the article. I then reminded the subject, via the talk page of WP:OWN. The subject did not attempt to use the article's talk page to discuss or correct any inaccuracies and the general impression was one of an assumption of bad faith. As to the article itself I have no opinion on to whether it should be kept or deleted, my initial contribution was initially intended simply to wiki-link continuity announcer and my second to put the external link in the right place and not make the article sound like an advertisement, other changes were, initially at least, co-incidental. Jooler (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral (for now) we haven't had something like this since John Byrne deleted large chunks of his article. This is a very, very strange AfD and I really don't know what to do here (for once). The subjects insistence that he does not want an article is completely arbitrary but the question is, is the subject notable in the first place? As seen from several vandalism reverts (Including one of mine here), someone - possibly the subject - deleted the whole article several times (my vandalism revert was the last of about 3). It does seem that a BBC presenter named Patrick Muirhead does exist (so this isn't one very odd hoax, thankfully). I don't plan on making a vote until I see a few more sources proving notability. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 23:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add more comments, re: the above remarks. Firstly, if any of you care to telephone me at work (phone number of my shop on my website) I will happily confirm that I wish this article about me to be deleted. My assistant will take any messages when I'm not there. Secondly, with surprise that it should be necessary, I urge you strongly to exercise caution in what you infer from reading newspapers. You really need to be told that???! Be clear about this, however: I left the BBC a very angry man, used national newspapers to gain catharsis and shamelessly milked my 'barely notable' status to gain as much publicity as I possibly could for my fledgling small business. It was a worthwhile strategy. Now my retail business is up and running and profitable, and I am indeed training for a new and separate professional career, I am content to settle for obscurity. I don't merit a profile here. I am not a Wikipedia enthusiast and simply cannot be bothered to learn a whole lot of arcane rules to satisfy your collective instinct for tidiness and order (though not accuracy); I simply want the article scrubbed. Don't pontificate on my bona fides: phone me (or email) and find out if you have any doubts. Patrick Muirhead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickmuirhead (talk • contribs) 14:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you are Mr. Muirhead is not for debate, it's 1. If your article meets WP:BIO or if your notable. We try to be as neutral as possible and Wikipedia does not delete articles by the subject's request. I live in America, but am an Anglophile. Sadly, I do not get any British newspapers to even know why you left the Beeb. I did look around the Internet and yes, there are some sources about you, but the fact that you want the article on you delete doesn't do anything. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 17:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Take an objective view of what you just wrote. You don't delete articles by the subject's request. How utterly bizarre! A person's desire NOT to be profiled on a website should be their choice and a prime consideration. Anyway, I think we can all agree that I do not qualify as notable. And to lessen the workload for you and your busy Wikipedia bees correcting my revisions, it would be wise and expedient to remove me. I have access to multiple computers and a lot of determination. PM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickmuirhead (talk • contribs) 20:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I can't see that there's enough in this article as it currently stands to demonstrate notability. I have to say, though, that I'm sorely tempted to try to work the article up to standard myself, in reaction to the contempt and hostility being displayed here. I'm not proud of myself for that reaction, but there it is ... Mlaffs (talk) 18:09, 14 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 01:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Bjarne Berg

Dr. Bjarne Berg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was originally speedy deleted under criterion A7, but a DRV determined that notability was asserted and it should have a full AfD discussion. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 6. Despite a fairly clear assertion of notability there is very little evidence for it. No independent reliable sources are given and he does not appear to meet the criteria given in e.g. WP:BIO for notability of persons. Therefore, the article should be deleted until and unless reliable sources demonstrating notability can be found. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Recently hired assistant professor at a small liberal arts college; I can't find any citations to his papers in Google scholar. Too soon in his career to have made an impact; does not seem to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete cut and paste from CV with some personal information added.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete; Snowball Clause Without evidence of nobility, this article doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected stay from Delete, it has been though the process once and there is no new reason to appeal the original deletion, so their is no need to run it through the deletion process as of WP:SNOWBALL --MahaPanta (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This article has not been through AfD before. All prior deletions were based on speedy criteria A7 which a consensus at DRV held not to apply. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I was referring to the speedy deletion. I believe that the decision to speedy delete it for criteria A7 still stands. --MahaPanta (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This is almost a decent resumé; unfortunately, a resumé, like a good Wikipedia article, requires verifiable references and this article has none. Even if all the info contained therin were verifiable it is questionable whether or not this article could meet notability standards; I think it unlikely. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 00:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• weak delete First, the speedy was reversed at Deletion review, as it should have been , because a claim to many publications is a claim to notability. The problem here is how to evaluate the publications: they are not peer reviewed articles, as is usual for most academics. But this individual is working in an applied field, computer science, as an expert of the SAP programs, a major suite of enterprise resource planning software that is important enough to be a reasonable academics specialty. and publishing working papers and miscellaneous articles of various sorts about his subject. Lenoir-Rhyne College is not a major university. It's a liberal arts college with a strong orientation to professional studies in education and business. He's assistant professor there, and had published a long series of working papers and p practical guides and conference talks on this special subject. Many are in what seems to be a leading journal for the subject, even though it is not an academic journal. [http://www.sappro.com/. though it was not emphasised in the publication list, he is the author of 7 books on the program--I've added them. They were published by a specialised published distributed by St.Martins, not a vanity publisher. They're held in libraries--between 32 and 102, for the different titles, which is not that much. There are much mroe important mboosk on SAP, some help in almost 1000 libraries. Not a noted computer expert either..DGG (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete nn prof at low-end university. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:22, 10 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Milqud

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable band at all. Only links are to MySpace and band's page, which is a redirect to MySpace. Claims to have toured throughout the UK, but said claims aren't backed up by any sources. Only album is self released; only singles don't appear to have charted. The band's page was previously A7'd; this is supposedly a longer re-creation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete barely asserts notability (voted the best unsigned band... by whom?), no sources in article support notability, Google revealed no sources that could be added. <eleland/talkedits> 20:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• DeleteDoesn't have last names for members. No notability (has released only two songs) and website is still being constructed. It COULD be improved but... Mm40 (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Article asserts notability but fails to establish it. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete; Snowball Clause This article fails to establish notability so it doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected stay from Delete, so there is no need to run it through the deletion process as of WP:band and WP:SNOWBALL --MahaPanta (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Very close to speedy delete under {{db-band}}. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I also checked Google News archives and a library database of newspaper and magazine articles and could find no sources. Delete. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. tomasz. 10:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Asserts notability that doesn't seem to actually exist. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:42, 10 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emma Demar

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

Non notable filler character. The imd gave her a 19% chance at stardom. Also, the character she played is not even a main character. I looked at the main characters for this show, and she is not one of them. Delete Undeath (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:BIO with ease. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete; Snowball Clause This article doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting nobility, so there is no reason not to delete it as of WP:SNOWBALL --MahaPanta (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice for recreation. Her character had a build-up in the last episode prior to the strike and they wouldn't have done that if they won't have plans for her character. --Howard the Duck 04:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of films

Lists of films (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The original VfD for this was kept only because the category system wasn't fully set up to replace this. As it is, it's ungainly and unmaintainable. Contested prod to see talk page, which didn't explain much since no one's used it for a year. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Previous Afds at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of movies (no consensus/keep) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books by title (procedural close)

• Keep The category still looks disorganized and clunky... I'd much prefer to use this article. --Rividian (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Dijointed/clumsy/poorly written articles are not a reason for delete. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep a good example of why WP:USEFUL gets a bad rap. JJL (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I removed the prod tag, and was still in the process of writing the talkpage note (Talk:Lists of films#Prod tag) and note to the nom (User talk:David Fuchs#List prod).
  Might I suggest that the nominator attempt to raise issues on the talkpage himself, before leaping straight to AFD? Especially on large and old articles, and especially on ones that he has nom'd for deletion before.
  From the list's talkpage note:- Possible decisions include: tagging these [lists of lists] as disambig, or moving them to portalspace, or leaving them as they are, or something else. I have no preference, but do wish people would stop trying to afd/discuss them all individually. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Wisdom89 and JJL Lugnuts (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep How else are people that are searching for List of movies gonna get what they want? They'd have to keep on searching, it would be annoying, this* page makes things easy. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to the category. If the category is disorganized, fix it. Collectonian (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that redirecting to a category isn't acceptable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• If not, then Delete. Unnecessary and seemingly endless and indiscriminate list of lists. This is already adequately covered by the category. Collectonian (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Our category system is inconsistent, poorly-maintained, and has an inadequate interface (hard to get any kind of overview of it, without resorting to Catgraph). Most readers don't even notice it.
  See also WP:LOSE for why that is a poor afd argument, and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates for the editing guideline. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a little clunky but provides needed navigational overview. Why force people to muck about in categories? --Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. In what way is this page "unmaintainable"? The list is a useful navigational aid that provides greater organization and structure than what a category is capable of, so it's hardly redundant. PC78 (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Page is the top tier of a navigation system, perfectly in line the second point of Wikipedia:LIST#Purposes_of_lists. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - The only reason that a :Cat and a Article cannot coexist is if the Article does not bring anything to the table that a simple :Cat listing cannot do. In this case it is doing that by giving Readers multiple meathods (all in 1 Article/place) of doing just that. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Snowball keep Sometimes lists are better than categories, and this is a good example. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge. I have redirected the articles; knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yoopanese

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

Culture Shock (album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Camp Fever (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Yoop It Up (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Yoopy Do Wah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

One Can Short of a 6-Pack (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

For Diehards Only (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

We're Still Rockin' (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Jackpine Savage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I hate to do this, since I really like Da Yoopers, but unfortunately, it seems that their albums fail WP:MUSIC. All of these albums were released independently; the only sources that I can find for them are either the liner notes or short, mostly one-sentence reviews on All Music Guide -- in other words, no substantial coverage whatsoever. Also, the first four albums were cassette-only releases that have been out of print for almost a decade now; therefore, they're especially unlikely to have been covered.

Even though the band is clearly notable by criterion #7 of WP:MUSIC (the article's sources assert that they're prominent representatives of Michigan's musical scene), the lack of available information on their albums concerns me. Since it would be far too much information to simply merge the albums' track listings into their page, these album pages should probably be deleted for lack of individual notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The later albums feature slightly longer AMG reviews; however, I feel that this is more of an all-or-none case, so I'm listing them all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:13, 3 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)} 15:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge At first I was concerned that TenPoundHammer might be off his rocker, saying "slightly longer AMG reviews" because "reviews" means "secondary sources", and articles with secondary sources should not be killed. But upon reading the AMG reviews, they seem quite monotonic. Basically, the encyclopedic content of the album articles, and of the AMG reviews, boils down to "they wear thin after a while". All the rest is just lists of skits and songs without much interpretation, and the few skits that the AMG reviewer does single out for comment could be mentioned in the main article. So merge the albums into the main article, minus the lists but plus the specific criticisms. Paddy Simcox (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• There's really nothing to merge, since the band's page makes mention of all their albums already. Also, as far as I can tell, AMG is the only reliable source to have reviewed the albums -- and to base their critical reception entirely on AMG might be undue weight. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Redirct to the page on the band, so that people searching for the albums can find the information located on the band's page. -- saberwyn 02:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge all to Da Yoopers or alternately a new Da Yoopers discography page. --Dhartung | Talk 19:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge albums to main article of notable band or create a subarticle. While the band meets WP:MUSIC, unfortunately, the albums do not have enough coverage to warrant articles themselves. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly we want to include the information about these albums somewhere in the encyclopedia. Either in their own articles or as part of the article on the band that recorded them, neither or these options requires deletion. Catchpole (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment We seem to be headed for a consensus to merge. Therefore, I am taking Dhartung's idea and making a separate Da Yoopers discography page, which will use the {{tracklist}} templates to save space. I've gotten a start at User:TenPoundHammer/Yoopers sandbox. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support da merge to Da Yoopers discography page dere, eh? (Right towards the bottom end of Da Yoopers country here in SE Wisconsin) Nate • (chatter) 22:13, 9 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 a derivative of a copyright violation--but without prejudice to recreation as long as it's not cut-and-pasted from the company Website. Blueboy96 20:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PXE International

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

I nominate this article for deletion because the author has requested deletion [5] but others have edited the article and notability has been established. It seems that there is a coi, I draw to your attentions these articles too:Sharon F. Terry and Patrick F. Terry. My opinion is keep. Cenarium (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Copyvio concerns: The #History section of the article comes from the organization's website, under ["History of PXE International": First paragraph and list, including the "(Figure 1)", is taken from Initial Plan, with a few words omitted. While the next part of the section is from Groundwork; followed by Discovery of the Gene Associated with PXE. In fact, it seems that the entire article comes from the subsections of their History menu. Will post a copyvio note on the author's talk page. However, it seems that the group might be worth an article. — ERcheck (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Sorry, to say! Nicely written article. It a shame it does violates copyright, as pointed out above. Shoessss |  Chat  19:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fort Zumwalt West Middle School

Fort Zumwalt West Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable middle school, the one peripheral fiber of notability did not happen at the school and does not accrue to the school Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Fort Zumwalt School District as per WP:SCHOOL proposal and the merge-school tag that was already on the article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge content and redirect as search term as above and per well-established precedent even if it isn't quite yet policy. These do not need to come to AfD TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect and don't take to AfD in the future, just be WP:BOLD and redirect it. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - per precedent. I don't think there is enough notability yet although these Google News reports suggest there could some more by May 29th perhaps. EJF (talk) 17:20, 13 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 Jamie Brace, Keep Hounds Tooth. I'm not redirecting the former per TenPoundHammer's comments. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jamie Brace

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

Hounds Tooth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Spammy article on a non-notable singer; the band Hounds Tooth has no page doesn't seem notable either. This page is also composed mostly of review quotes and external links. Only claim of notability is an award from Shepherd Express, which I doubt is enough for WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The singer won an award from the third largest newspaper in the state of Wisconsin, and her band was described as being at the center of the Milwaukee-area blues scene. Mvuijlst (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment In that case, I would support moving this page to a page on the band, with a section on the lead singer if the band's notability can be asserted through sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. Mvuijlst (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Created a stub for Hounds Tooth. Redirect Jamie Brace to there for now? Mvuijlst (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. The band doesn't have even a credits/discography on AllMusic, let alone a biography, which makes me doubt its ability to pass WP:MUSIC. The award is local, and much as I love the Shepherd Express, it's a free weekly in a city noted more for its rare breakouts than a nationally-recognized music scene. --Dhartung | Talk 19:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - possible redirect to Hounds Tooth. Catchpole (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Whoops, didn't catch that. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It wasn't there (see above). There's nothing in there asserting WP:MUSIC passage, either. --Dhartung | Talk 22:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The band might be notable enough, but the individual members are not. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Given the near-total lack of sources here, I endorse the deletion of the newly created Hounds Tooth stub. I would have redirected if I could have found any sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete both per Dhartung, sorry. tomasz. 11:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect As described above. Keep and improve the Hounds Tooth stub in good faith until editors have a little more time to raise it up to WP:MUSIC. SingCal 15:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Both Doesn't come close to passing WP:BAND. faithless (^speak) 22:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hounds Tooth and focus on improving that article first. --clpo13_(talk) 06:18, 16 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 Dusti^{talk to me} 17:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Juni Fisher

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

Tagged for notability since November with no improvement. Almost reads like a copy & paste job. Has a couple of awards, but said awards dont seem to be notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep – Sorry, the lady did win two awards, that have been verified. Though neither award is a Grammy, neither are local competitions either. Shoessss |  Chat  20:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Article meets core policies, requires clean-up not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I did find this but I'm coming up pretty short on sources otherwise. I'm not yet convinced enough to withdraw this nomination, but would reconsider if other sources are found. I have stubified the article and removed the promotional tone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have added multiple sources including feature articles about her in The Fresno Bee, and The Press-Enterprise. I sourced her Academy of Western Artists award to Billboard. Keep. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hank Woji

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

Has a few claims to notability, maybe just this side of an A7, but he seems to fail WP:MUSIC entirely. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- per nomination and CSD A7. AndreNatas (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Agree - Maybe after a hit song. Shoessss |  Chat  20:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I would have put this under db-person. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to School District 36 Surrey per WP:SCHOOL. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery Elementary School

Discovery Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn elementary school Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to School District 36 Surrey as per proposed WP:SCHOOL. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge content and redirect as search term as above and per well-established precedent even if it isn't quite yet policy TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to School District 36 Surrey. --clpo13_(talk) 06:19, 16 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. — CharlotteWebb 18:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enver Creek Secondary School

non-notable, Wikipedia is not a directory and does not need a stub on every school just because a template exists Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to School District 36 Surrey as per proposed WP:SCHOOL. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge content and redirect as search term as above and per well-established precedent even if it isn't quite yet policy TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - not only a high school but one where there has been a notable controversy. [6]. TerriersFan (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as per TerriersFan. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but add he material cited by Terriers fan. If its important enough to use for notability it belongs in the article.DGG (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - done. TerriersFan (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The school and its bullying problems have sustained WP:RS attention and not just with the suicide: [7] [8]. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge content and redirect as search term as the bullying controversy fits into the School District 36 Surrey controversy, also as per Kintetsubuffalo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmloof (talk • contribs) 17:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep WP:ORG notable and as a high school it can be expected to have sufficient sources to be notable, even if they weren't already in the article. Noroton (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per comments above. The write ups for the suicide appear to be about the individual who may in fact be notable. However the school does not inherit the notability from the student. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:02, 13 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cupids (club)

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

Was in the news for a very short time many years ago. Now holds no value to Wikipedia and is just an advert for a sordid backstreet sex club with the only "claim to fame" having a politition visit. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 18:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• delete- per nomination, non-notable club. AndreNatas (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per the brothel-known-for-one-event policy. Seriously, unsourced, no real notability asserted or shown. --Dhartung | Talk 19:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep – The club did achieve notability from reliable – creditable and verifiable sources as shown here, [9]. Concerning a one-event policy, as listed in WP:Notability, the policy applies to the individuals involved in the event, not the event itself. This club meets the requirements that are necessary for inclusion in Wikipedia, though we may agree with them or not. Shoessss |  Chat  20:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment – Piece is now inline cited – sourced and references provided. A complete copy of all comments can be found on the discussion page. Shoessss |  Chat  10:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - as nominator. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 12:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Shoessss and citation additions to article. It has been the subject of multiple independent secondary reliable sources. --Oakshade (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:06, 13 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ruth Koll

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

The articles makes claims about being "award winning" and being noted for having a large vocal range, but there are no independent sources which show that she meets the definition of ANY of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, such as WP:N, WP:BIO, or WP:MUSIC. Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Singer isn't the subject of any sources, and any claims of notability aren't backed up by any sources at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- per nomination. AndreNatas (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walter E. Reno

Walter E. Reno (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reason this guy should have an article. He's an undistinguished naval officer who died at sea in an unfortunate accident. Other than that, there is nothing here to hang an article on. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and I see no reason to keep this article around. Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge into USS Reno (DD-303) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Will ^(talk) 17:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Carom (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge as above. The Navy bio (basically the same text) indicates no high medals or any other reason to consider him noteworthy (he was apparently asleep in his cabin when his ship was rammed, and played no role in the aftermath, per this). While being the namesake of a vessel might suggest some, if it's the only reason to include someone they are best discussed at the vessel's article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Commanded a warship in wartime and the navy consdiered him important enough to name another ship after him. Edward321 (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • So why is it important that he have his own article, and not simply have such facts mentioned in the article on the ship named after him? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge per Sceptre. faithless (^speak) 22:46, 15 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, A7. Blueboy96 20:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zengxin chemical

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

Insufficient indication of company's notability. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7, since the article does not even indicate WHY they are important. This is below even notability... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7 per above; no notability asserted. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete- per these above. AndreNatas (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miracles of Life

Miracles of Life (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Aside from being a near-duplicate of its author's article (an autobiography, and all that) it totally fails to meet WP:BK, and in addition, doesn't even attempt to assert notability. A speedy-tag was contested. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I can't see the logic in this statement: what do you expect the plot of an autobiography be? Ballard is one of the most important living British authors, and I cannot see why his recent autobiography should not have its own page. Besides, there was already a link in the page on Ballard. The autobiography is quite important as it clarifies some aspects of his previous semiautobiographical works, Empire and Kindness, and offers relevant information about the life of the author. --James.kerans (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Reply - I don't expect the plot to be anything other; I just think that the article is useless. Anyway, please read this page and follow the instructions on how to assert the article's importance; your paragraph here isn't really much better, I'm afraid. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep A book by JG Ballard is notable. Any issues with the quality of the article should be dealt with by editing it.Nick Connolly (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Reply - Well, quoting from the page you suggested, J.G. Ballard is so historically significant that any of his written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources. There are 3 academic monographs on him in print, one of from Liverpool University Press, one from Manchester UP. Two other book-length essays on him are forthcoming. Not many living British authors have been so honored by academic critics. Nonetheless, I have added five (5) external links to websites of important British newspapers that have reviewed the book, and have stated its importance. In case you are not knowledgeable of the author, please visit this website http://www.ballardian.com/. All this discussion is slightly surreal. We are not talking about a minor writer; we are talking about someone whose works have been translated all around the world, a contemporary classic, and the publication of his autobiography is a literary event. Surely the entry that I have create is far, very far from perfect, but that the idea that an entry on Miracles of Life is deleted, not improved, is--well, let's say that it's rather funny. --James.kerans (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A live person historically significant? —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment suggest you read WP:BK , Ballard is a major figure in modern English writing. This article fits more than one criteria in WP:BK. It is a fait accompli that the article won't be deleted.Nick Connolly (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Reply - Is that all you can answer to my reply? Yessir, historically relevant as he is already part of British literary history. An international conference on Ballard was held last year in Norwich, at the local university, with guests from several countries, and that--once again, I repeat it--is proof of Ballard importance in the literary environment and beyond it. --James.kerans (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep Where to begin! 5 reviews in the biggest British broadsheets means this topic meets WP:NOTE by a landslide. The author is so notable that all his works would be notable even without secondary sources. It is inexplicable that the nominator would have nominated this article for deletion had thy any idea who Ballard is. I recommend a swift face-saving withdrawal of the nomination. скоморохъ 18:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. I don't think it's important enough or idiosyncratic enough to need a separate article from its author/subject; unless you can say something besides "this is his life as described in our article on him", what's the point? But the reviews make it notable, so whether or not to merge here is editorial discretion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Actually there are missing elements also in the autobiography, and much of the added value of the book is that there Ballard comments on the envents of his life that have been already told, in a slightly or heavily different form, in Kindness and Empire; plus he adds information on his family he had never disclosed before, including pictures. As I have already said, the entry is far from complete, but this is a matter of editing, not deleting or merging.--James.kerans (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC) 213.140.21.227 (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And why on Earth is that worth more than a couple lines in J.G. Ballard? Yes, the book has added value, but you can say that in a sentence. I'd say that saying the article isn't complete is missing the issue; the plot dump needs to be removed and an explanation of what's notable and interesting about the book itself needs to be added. --Prosfilaes (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - The notability of the book is clear, given Ballard's status and its importance. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The external links to reviews show that this autobiography is very notable. Bláthnaid 19:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 19:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Any book by J. G. Ballard is notable, and the referenced reviews (of which there are sure to be more, given that the book was published very recently) just confirm that. Klausness (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of the reviews. DGG (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - multiple reviews give it WP:RS's and satisfy WP:V & WP:NOTE. But a book is not notable just because of whom it was written by as some may suggest. That would be inherited notability. WP does not recognise that. (PS. WP:BK only allows it to disreguard the above if it "is a subject of common classroom study", which is never stated or proven.) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You are very much mistaken; WP:BK offers five conditions, all of which are sufficient and not necessary to establish notability. Criteria 5 states that "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources." Being a source of classroom study is merely cited as an example of how this might apply. Regards, скоморохъ 09:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But he is, in fact, a subject of common classroom study. Here's just one syllabus I found: [10]. And there's plenty more out there... Klausness (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. And once you have mentioned in the Article that he is the "subject of common classroom study", allong with a Ref, there will be no doubt in this AfD. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the main J. G. Ballard article already has plenty of evidence that he's so historically significant that any of his written works may be considered notable. As скоморохъ quite correctly points out, being the subject of common classroom study is just one example of how this might be shown (and, in any case, this would be more appropriately shown in the main J. G. Ballard article rather than in an article about one of his books). And given the large number of reliable sources currently cited in the article (between 8 and 11, depending on your threshold of reliability), this book would clearly count as notable even if the author was not otherwise notable. Klausness (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have to vote for merge to Ballard. At the moment notability for this outside of being a source for his life is skimpy; As it stands, it tucks neatly into his own article. Mangoe (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How is non-trivial coverage in 5 reliable sources "skimpy" notability? скоморохъ 18:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's already been reviewed in just about every major newspaper in the UK (which appears to be the only country in which the book has been released so far). That hardly seems like skimpy notability. Klausness (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the reliable sources are eight now. The book has its own literary value, is is not just a source for Ballard's life. This should be discussed in the entry, but could not be done if it is eliminated.--James.kerans (talk) 09:17, 11 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 per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Newport Free Grammar School

Newport Free Grammar School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to meet the requirements in WP:ORG - certainly doesn't assert its notability as is the general rule. A speedy-tag was contested. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - From WP:ORG "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]... from a quick google search. The article needs work but should not be deleted. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough; my complaint was that it didn't assert its notability as is required. Note that your fifth link isn't actually any good, since it's a government department that lists data on all schools iirc. —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, none of those links are reliable. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course they are - the first link, for example, is a University which is obviously notable. TerriersFan (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So a government department that lists all data on schools isn't reliable? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much. In and of itself, it isn't notable. Fleeting mentions or listings in independent sources isn't enough. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Founded in 1588 - obviously notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I see - what's the cut-off date for notability by age, then? 1589? 1703? 2006? It's a bizarre idea to suggest that age makes something notable; my grandparents aren't notable, nor is my family by virtue of the fact that it was "founded" even before that school... —TreasuryTag—t—c 17:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Age does tend to make things notable; on one hand, old things tend to have a long time to have things written about them, and on the other hand people are interested in the things that survive an exceptionally long time. If your grandparents were still around after more than 120 years, they would be notable. But there's certainly no magic cut-off line for everything, and even for narrow subjects it's usually easier to take on a case by case basis rather than create an arbitrary line.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep; it's verifiable and the age makes it notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Theresa. Remember that an article need not explicitly say, "So and so is notable because..." Indeed, it shouldn't say that; that would be considered peacock language. Zagalejo^^^ 18:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep 420 year-old school, bound to have some sources; GoogleBooks and GoogleNews shows promise. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per googlenews. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep - the nominator says "A speedy-tag was contested." A high school founded in 1588 is not notable? Sheesh! TerriersFan (talk) 22:15, 9 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yussuf Hassan

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

unnotable, fails WP:BIO. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete — No established notability. Seems to be promotional — first external link is to a page selling his book (no G-hits on the book). — ERcheck (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I did find this from the BBC, but currently he fails the notability test. Renee (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. The Wikipedia article and the BBC profile have none of the same focus. Neither one really establishes notability. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete All --JForget 01:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I Know What You Did Last Winter (Web Movie)

I Know What You Did Last Winter (Web Movie) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I Know What You Did Last Winter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I Still Know What You Did Last Winter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I'll Always Know What You Did Last Winter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google search shows only 4 hits, none of which are relevant, so I can't see it can passing our WP:N guidelines. Marasmusine (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete See also I Know What You Did Last Winter. Lets not bite the newbie, but this isnt WP material (not notable). -Reuvenk_{T C} 16:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete for reasons above. Moncrief (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete WP:N--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as non-notable web content. I removed the wikilinks which implied that an Air Force general and a New York city councilman were among the cast (more likely, the cast members just shared the same names), as well as the claim that the movie has been rated R by the MPAA (it hasn't been, and the article claims that the movie hasn't even finished filming yet anyway). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'm adding I Still Know What You Did Last Winter to this discussion. Marasmusine (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• CoOmment I just nominated I Still Know What You Did Last Winter for CSD:A7. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete -- Probable hoax. Found another one as well: I'll Always Know What You Did Last Winter -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 19:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all, no evidence of notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all per comments above. Noor Aalam (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete all per above. They don't meet WP:N. Ale_Jrb^talk 23:04, 9 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 speedily deleted as suggested and tagged. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ignacio Govere Colliport (iBoy)

Ignacio Govere Colliport (iBoy) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A musician who claims to have been #1 on UK charts. Yet no google hits outside Wikipedia. Any chance whatsoever the claims of fame aren't simply made up? Weregerbil (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Absolutely no sources check out on him. No charts list him, nothing found on everyhit.com, All Music Guide or anywhere. In fact the only ghits for the artist is to Wikipedia and mirror sites. If he hit #1 on the UK Singles Charts, I would've at least gotten something. And the fact the album went Gold in America? I've got nothing on that either. This is a hoax. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 16:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong DELETE. When I first saw this page I immediately noticed its lack of references and on that basis alone I would have moved for deletion. A further look revealed some fairly incredible claims such as having sold a total of almost 2.3 million albums and having an RIAA certified gold record which led me to think the page might be a hoax. Then I noticed that there were refernce numbers next to some items but no references at the bottom of the page. I looked into it and found that the page had references but there was no {{reflist}} tag to allow them to appear. I fixed this problem and began to check these references only to find it is a complete fabrication. The MSNBC and Washington Post articles cited do not contain the quotations and/or titles listed and make no reference at all to this supposed artist. The Soundscan numbers that supposedly back up the claim of having sold 799,400 albums are actually about another album and artist, and the RIAA database of gold albums shows no certifications for this artist or any of his supposed works. This is most definitely a complete hoax. OlenWhitaker (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete — Blatant hoax. Citations don't pan out. — ERcheck (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete WP:HOAX--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G3 as hoax per everyone above. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:30, 9 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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Bellinghaus

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

I believe the claim for notability is related to collection of Marilyn Monroe memorabilia, but it's hard to tell with all the other cruft here. Many ghits for "Mark Bellinghaus" but most are his own blogs or PR pieces. One minor role in major film. Fails WP:BIO (lacks significant awards, recognition, or press coverage). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• By reading this article, one can see that there are numerous sources which reference back to the subject's contributions in uncovering Marilyn Monroe Memorabilia Fraud. Such notables as Michael Shermer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shermer) included articles about Bellinghaus' research in his online magazine and website. This topic and subject was covered by major news agencies. Two out of 29 sources referenced in this article are Bellinghaus', that is not considered "most".

Is there way to request that an article deletion request be reverted? If so I'd like to do so. --Papillonbleu (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The nearest thing you can get to this is 'speedy close as keep', but that is unlikely to happen here, so no, not really. — BillC ^talk 17:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete. It's difficult to plough through this article, filled throughout with lavish praise, to get to the subject matter. There doesn't seem to be too strong a claim of genuine notability, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise. — BillC ^talk 17:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(I'm replying under my own comment, since the formatting below is a little mixed up at present. Anyone feel free to move this should this be sorted out.) Being referenced by other Wikipedia article(s) confers no degree of notability, particularly when contributors to one article can easily create backward links in another. Notability thresholds are met due to multiple external independent sources. It gets closer however, with the Shermer reference; however, Shermer didn't so much write about Bellinghaus, he introduced him and published an article by him. (FWIW, I'm an eSkeptic subscriber myself and received the article in question.) — BillC ^talk 19:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Bill C, this is what I've been trying to note to User:Delicious carbuncle in our discussions below. I believe this subject fills the basic criteria for WP:Notability for People with independent sources for both film and television appearances and investigative work into Monroe. This includes secondary source material that is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject. That includes the Shermer reference, as well as coverage from sources noted in Eric Berlin article and other articles. --Papillonbleu (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry for using jargon - "ghits' is short for "Google hits". I wasn't referring to the refs in the article itself, although spotchecking those, I see that several of them don't mention Bellinghaus at all. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Note that this is actually the third nomination, not the second (I used Twinkle to submit). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please see source articles on subject's involvement in anti-Fraud with Monroe, which are comprised of 29 valid sources including the BBC, AP, etc. Subject has received global press coverage with his achievements and discoveries as indicated by the resource links. As mentioned, notable Michael Shermer has written about him. Subject is also linked on Marilyn Monroe Wikipedia Article. And has been for extensive time:

Extracted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Monroe See also

   * Death of Marilyn Monroe
   * Marilyn Monroe in popular culture
   * Berniece Baker Miracle, her half-sister
   * Look alike contest Monroe's popularity as a costume
   * Mark Bellinghaus Monroe memorabilia collector and activist

Subject was linked on Marilyn Monroe's Wikipedia Article for the importance of the work done in her memory, which he is known for. This is another indicator of notability.

--Papillonbleu (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Nominations for deletions on this article appear to be vandals as indicated by this talk page below. Deletion nominations for this article have been flagged by editors, such as below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hilljayne Mark Bellinghaus

Can you please provide a url from which this is a copyright infringement, I have removed your speedy tag until this is done, as I am unsure as to the validity of your speedy tag. Regards, SGGH speak! 14:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Your post[1] is a violation of WP:BLP. Do not leave such derogatory comments. Additionally, the article is not a copyright infringement. It has been edited thoroughly and been through an AfD. Tyrenius (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle appears to not be using these labels with care, as based on other examples on user's Wiki Talk Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Delicious_carbuncle --Papillonbleu (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to on my talk page, but this isn't the forum to discuss my actions. I am not User:Hilljayne, nor is that user the nominator of either of the first two AfDs, so I really can't see the relevance, or the justification for accusing anyone of being a vandal. Note that notability is not portable -- Michael Shermer is not the topic of this article -- and that links from other articles do not connote notability. Please review AfD discussion guidelines. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of being a vandal but noted that there were questions on your Talk Page about other cases you were involved with and that the Bellinghaus article was submitted for deletion by another user and was flagged per the attached

our post[1] is a violation of WP:BLP. Do not leave such derogatory comments. Additionally, the article is not a copyright infringement. It has been edited thoroughly and been through an AfD. Tyrenius (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

On the topic of Shermer, he is a notable subject on Wiki who has written about the Bellinghaus findings. Bellinghaus is also referenced on the Marilyn Monroe Wiki article. Plus written about by major news agencies many times. This should show subject's notability.

--Papillonbleu (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I highly protest the deletion process since it has become a farce like procedure. If you are looking in the history tabs of the Mark Bellinghaus article you can see that there were some individuals who obviously were trying to hide, what Bellinghaus and some others have discovered. I also highly protest to claim that Michael Shermer's supporting reprint is 'irrelevant' since he has established himself for many years now as an important voice for the people who are taken by 'believeres' in anything. The debunking of James van Praagh alone should grant the Mark Bellinghaus site justice. I did not see the Michael Shermer link in the past history so I added it myself. It has been proven many times now, that some other individuals have been vandalizing this page in particular, people who came on just for the purpose to cause damage, and in some cases they also claimed things about Mark Bellinghaus which were harmful to his persona. It is quite obvious to anyone who is looking into the details of this matter, that he has been fighting people who do want to harm him and discredit him for everything he achieved. Again, I find it extremely important to warn the public about frauds, any frauds.

Weareallone (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, notability is not portable - Mark Bellinghaus is not Michael Shermer and must be judged on his own merits. A history of vandalism to the article does not confer either notability or verification of any claims. Weareallone, as the most recent major contributor to this article, what is your understanding of how Bellinghaus is notable? Can we at least agree that his film work does not meet WP:Notability and therefore ignore 1/3 of the article's references? Out of the rest, some are links to PR sites or Bellinghaus' own blogs, and about half of what's left don't even mention Bellinghaus. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Going back to the first nomination, I said If there were a slight chance of a keep, in my book, the WP:COI strikes it. There are extremely marginal claims to notability as a collector, but the article has consistently been used in a POV and promotional way. There's simply no way that the non-memorabilia portion of his life/career are worth an in-depth examination. --Dhartung | Talk 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Where would you question his notability with his television and movie career? Plentiful references in this article document that. Shermer's support of Bellinghaus should be considered plus Bellinghaus stands on his own within the reference links, which are quality links that reflect international news coverage about Bellinghaus. --Papillonbleu (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel like you are missing the point here. I have not noticed any attempts of Mark Bellinghaus to copy Michael Shermer in any ways. To my knowledge Mr. Shermer came to Mark Bellinghaus' first blog exposure of a huge fraud which also included the self proclaimed psychic James van Praagh. And I guess it is known what Mr. Shermer thinks about van Praagh. However, I looked into the history of the Mark Bellinghaus page and realized that a lot of vandalism happened in the past. People who edited there left lies and accusations about Mr. Bellinghaus and obviously tried to achieve in getting their own Wikipedia page.

I also do not agree that any acting work from Mr. Bellinghaus should be belittled, since he appeared not only in an international film, but is also named as starring actor in a TV series in Germany. And I guess in the United States anybody can claim to be an actor/actress, even if they cannot prove it with any work they have done in that profession. Again, it is obvious that some people would follow Bellinghaus everywhere he is going. Mr. Bellinghaus has been the victim of identity theft numerous times as well. The links are important to get the whole picture of a person who is obviously using his whole talents in order to warn the public about a group of people who are out to harm the general public by supporting fraudulent exhibitions, memorabilia and characters who claim to be what they are not. The debunking of a woman who named herself June DiMaggio is extremely important for Marilyn Monroe history, since this woman claimed that Monroe was murdered and that she was a friend of Monroe for eleven years. If people like that would get away with their claims, I hope you agree Delicious carbuncle, we all had a hard time to look into the life and history of any person of interest. Before I added the important and supporting links the Mark Bellinghaus article contained one quote and I added two very interesting (in my own opinion) quotes. I will now remove one and I hope that we can agree on an acceptable outcome. I did research before I edited anything at all and I have not found proof for a bigger exhibition scandal or hoax. You mayb be familiar with another fraud which was happening in Great Britain, but it was a museums display and the fraud was a fake skull which was claimed to by many thousands of years old. Again, we must be aware that since the crimes are still so fresh in the Marilyn Monroe exhibition frauds, that supporters of these crimes are trying to silent Mr. Bellinghaus or to belittle his work for the public. I did not mean to turn the article into a fan site as you also complained. I am a fan of fact based investigations and the success of Mark Bellinghaus' first exposures truly speaks for itself. He found a scandal and he exposed it and everything attached to this scandal would create a brighter, a bigger firework, since he discovered more and more crimes. I could go on and on about this as you see, but I really do feel that it should be important and absolutely supported if one is succeeding in making a difference in our society, that we should support him and not attack and erase him/her. The founder of this very wonderful website just was all over the news because of a personal, a private matter. Are you judging all of us editors now, just because the founder of Wikipedia has his personal belongings sold off on eBay by his former partner? Please think about this as well.

I will take out one quote from the article, and I contacted some other editors to look into this matter. The more neutral editors, the better. I also do not agree on deleting reference links. The more information, the better.

Weareallone (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Above is correct if one looks at the history of the mafhoney revisions, which were undone by an editor. Also IP address in between the mafhoney user was noted for vandalism.

1. (cur) (last) 05:27, 13 February 2007 Deatonjr (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 106952645 dated 2007-02-09 23:09:06 by Tyrenius using popups) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 05:25, 13 February 2007 Deatonjr (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 106906517 dated 2007-02-09 19:47:56 by Monroe62 using popups) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 05:24, 13 February 2007 Deatonjr (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 107713708 dated 2007-02-13 01:36:42 by Mafhoney using popups) (undo)
4. (cur) (last) 02:16, 13 February 2007 Mafhoney (Talk | contribs) (→The US and Monroe) (undo)
5. (cur) (last) 01:36, 13 February 2007 Mafhoney (Talk | contribs) (→The US and Monroe) (undo)
6. (cur) (last) 01:10, 13 February 2007 Mafhoney (Talk | contribs) (→The US and Monroe) (undo)
7. (cur) (last) 01:05, 13 February 2007 63.3.66.147 (Talk) (→The US and Monroe) (undo)
8. (cur) (last) 00:58, 13 February 2007 63.3.66.147 (Talk) (→The US and Monroe) (undo)
9. (cur) (last) 19:55, 12 February 2007 Mafhoney (Talk | contribs) (→References) (undo)
10. (cur) (last) 19:53, 12 February 2007 Mafhoney (Talk | contribs) (→References) (undo)
11. (cur) (last) 19:51, 12 February 2007 Mafhoney (Talk | contribs) (→The US and Monroe) (undo)

--Papillonbleu (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Another notation on the subject Mark Bellinghaus: external link includes subject's website, which has over 93,000 hits and should also be an indicator of subject's notability in field of work and expertise.

--Papillonbleu (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I am reluctant to add another word to this discussion, but since comments were addressed to me personally, I will respond briefly. Bellinghaus' acting work clearly fails WP:Notability. I do not doubt his credits, but they are limited, he has won no awards, and has no significant media covergae as an actor. Bellinghaus' website hits are not relevant to this discussion since the article is not about his website. I have no idea why you are bringing up Mafhoney, since they have not been involved in this discussion. Bellinghaus' real or imagined enemies have no bearing on the notability of this article. I note, however, that User:Papillonbleu and User:Weareallone share the same interests, editing styles, and style of argument. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

He seems to qualify on WP:Notability under Basic Criteria for people: Basic criteria

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[2] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[3] and independent of the subject.[4]

   * If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[5]
   * Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

Shermer article should qualify as secondary source material that is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject. There are other links which could qualify as secondary and are referenced in Bellinghaus article.

And in regard to your closing argument, one could also state that User:Papillonbleu and User:Delicious carbuncle share the same interests since you revised my contributions to the Lee Strasberg and Mark Bellinghaus articles. --Papillonbleu (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, can you be more specific here please? Are you suggesting that Wikipedia editor Papillonbleu and I are the same person, just because we has added important links to an extremely important page? If I go into your own history I can also see some similar wordings and phrases which are used in two differnt users pages. But that is arguable as the reasons you have brought forward against the relevance of acting work. So you do not agree that Bellinghaus is a photographer, yet he literally furnished all of his exposures with his own photographs, and I also found some press releases on the Internet which show his in my opinion talent as a photographer. I saw his posting on his discussion site, where he threw in the facts that now are added to the Mark Bellinghaus page, which spill out another mean fraud and exhibition hoax. I added the Michael Shermer praise for Bellinghaus myself and I am standing behind this, since it is of great relevance, since psychics tried to confuse the public's opinion about some fake Marilyn Monroe belongings. Van Praagh supported a scam and both parties were exposed. And I would like to bring back the attention back to the second submission for deletion. It was obviously done by a person who had a personal agenda and used Wikipedia in a retaliation attack. Weareallone (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

More discoveries about Bellinghaus' acting credentials that I found online. Please see this link: http://lexikon.power-oldie.com/Mark_Bellinghaus - if translated it shows that he acted in Fremde Liebe Fremde, which was an award winning show, winning several Grimme Preis, which means Grimme Prize. He played the brother of lead actress Meret Becker, one of Germany's leading actresses who also played a part in Steven Speilberg's "Munich". He also co-starred with Camilla Horn.--Papillonbleu (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The so-called Shermer article is merely a short introduction (which appears to be a mostly a cut and paste from Bellinghaus' own site if you look at the wording) and a partial reposting of one of Bellinghaus' blog posts. So far as I know, Shermer has not written anything else about Bellinghaus. Can we let that one go now?
• Reply to Carbuncle No --Papillonbleu (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• The awards mentioned above by Papillonbleu are for the show, not Bellinghaus. Meret Becker is one of Germany's leading actresses, not Bellinghaus. Bellinghaus did not have a part in Steven Speilberg's "Munich". Camilla Horn is not Bellinghaus. Incidentally, the page you offer is a copy of the German WP page for Bellinghaus.
• I have acted on my suspicions and opened a sockpuppetry case here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Reply to Carbuncle User:Delicious carbuncle, never answered my statement why they followed me onto two Wiki articles, including this one, and instead filed a bogus report against me saying I'm a Sock Puppet. Just because I don't agree with this person and their opinions? As I wrote - "And in regard to your closing argument, one could also state that User:Papillonbleu and User:Delicious carbuncle share the same interests since you revised my contributions to the Lee Strasberg and Mark Bellinghaus articles. --Papillonbleu (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)" - User:Delicious carbuncle instead appears overzealous to discredit anyone who positively affirms this article. Carbuncle's suspicions are way off as evidence on the replies of the victims of carbuncle's accusations: here--Papillonbleu (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment An AfD involves voting, which is why the sockpuppetry case is relevant here (and the sole reason I started it). This is not the place to debate it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep All of this other diversionary rhetoric aside, searching Google, omitting phrases such as "by Mark Bellinghaus", Wikipedia, YouTube, and other such terms, there are sufficient substantial hits to convince me that, if nothing other than as the owner of this collection, Bellinghaus is notable, much more than some of the biographies that exist on Wikipedia. This isn't to say the article doesn't need massive work, or that it isn't full of POV and extraneous material. But he's notable, self-made or not, which is the only criteria. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There are more media mentions than at the last AfD, including UK national press. There seems to have been some COI editing, which needs to be cleaned up, but that's not a reason to delete. Ty 03:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Looking at the current references, there are four UK press links: Times Online, Argus, BBC, and Sunday Express. Note that only the Sunday Express tabloid mentions Bellinghaus - the others do not. The rest of the references are as spotty. And in the external links to YouTube videos, the BCC radio clip identifies Bellinghuas as "Managing Director of Marilyn Monroe Productions" (not an expert); the French tv clip calls him "a passionate collector" (again, not an expert). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Whether he is an expert or not is a matter which should be discussed on the article talk page, though I note that UK national paper Daily Express calls him a "world-renowned Monroe expert" and the story is specifically about his claims.[18] This debate is whether he has sufficient coverage from secondary sources to keep an article on him. As you have pointed out, there are multiple international sources that include him. That meets requirements of WP:BIO. There is also a dedicated feature on him in LA Weekly.[19] Detailed discussion on the relevance or otherwise of other references is again a matter to raise on the article talk page. Ty 00:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• The LA Weekly feature is not, as you state, dedicated, it covers several Monroe collectors. I'm assuming that self-proclaimed "expert in Marilyn Monroe" is his claim to notability, so this is exactly the place to discuss it. Otherwise, why is he notable? Granted, he seems to be a relentless self-promoter, not even having let this AfD slow down his additions to WP (see Debunker for example). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• I stand corrected. LA Weekly is not only about him, but it provides substantial non-trivial coverage of him. Notability does not necessitate proving that a person is notable for any one thing in particular, but simply that there is a sufficient amount of coverage in secondary sources of that person, which could relate, in fact, to various activities. It is agreed that he has received international coverage. Ty 02:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The article needs a good clean up which I will do if no-one else will, but this subject is no less notable now than at the last AfD. More, if anything. If there are specific concerns, they should be raised in the article talk. --John (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I've cleaned up the worst of the peacock terms, repetition and overstatement in the article. I hope you will agree it looks much better. --John (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for the same reasons as John above. Bondegezou (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Notice Please keep the discussion focused on the merits of this article - this is not the place for bringing up various off-wiki conflicts. I've removed attacks on another editor which had nothing to do with the discussion, please do not reinsert them. henrik•talk 21:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It neads a bit of a tidy, but it seems to be notable! I do not however approve of what he has done!Flutterdance (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• — Flutterdance (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ty 14:24, 14 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KenyaDig

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

Non-notable music ensemble/duo - admittedly underground. Searching reveals nothing substantial [20] Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. No verifiable evidence of notability. — ERcheck (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. AndreNatas (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete should have been speedied under A7. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:28, 9 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. faithless (^speak) 22:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SkyOS

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

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

Was nominated for deletion on March 2, but the resulting discussion was hard to evaluate due to a large number of IPs and new users chiming in. Procedural nomination, I have no opinion. Blueboy96 14:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This image suggest significant independent coverage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable. --Oldak Quill 15:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - querulous and way too soon renomination - renominating a week later clogs up AFD unneccessarily and unfortunately can come across as an editorially unhealthy interest in the matter of deleting the article - David Gerard (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The nomination was still open--I only relisted it because I suspected nobody could tell whether consensus was reached due to the large number of IP =!votes. Blueboy96 15:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails to meet notability guidelines and contains copious original research. The article has improved since the last AfD, but I believe the notability to be fundamental to the topic is lacking. This OS is used by at most a handful of people, and the only place where is even (rarely) reported on is OSNews, which is a blog/news site dedicated to all forms of operating systems obscure or otherwise. While the article no longer reads as an advertisement (as a result of the previous AfD) this article seems to be used as a platform by its author to get more traffic to his website as a type of marketing tool. I believe this to be an inappropriate use of Wikipedia. Imacreditcard (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Edit: Removed vote due to additional references being added.
  • Since it seems that I am not allowed to vote else the article will get renominated, I would just like to point out that this was the person who originally nominated the article for deletion. He mentions following the project on OSNews closely enough to know how often it is mentioned (rarely, you say?), claims to have researched it enough to know its usage statistics, and is persistent about the article's use as an advertisement, which we can all agree it no longer is. I feel it's safe to assume that he has a negative, preexisting bias toward the project. It's not a huge leap to make. Many advocates of FOSS seem to take personal offense to SkyOS. As he is not a respected contributor to Wikipedia and has made very few (one, in fact) other contributions, I am led to believe that he targeted the SkyOS article in malice. Alex Forster (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: First of all I suggest you read WP:FAITH. Secondly, I've been contributing to Wikipedia for a very long time, just not with a user account. Thirdly, the article which I nominated for deletion is not the same article as it exists today, the sections which were clearly vanity and advertisement were removed and the article was expanded greatly. Notice how I do not claim the article is an advertisement anymore. Forthly, it is not my job to try to prove the article is not notable, it is the job of the article to prove notability, which it fails to do so. I like many Wikipedians, do want Wikipedia to be a good encylopedia, not a collection of company press releases or random spam. And even if this article doesn't end up getting deleted, as a result of this AfD it is at least in a better condition then it was before. There is no malice to see here. Imacreditcard (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep; the article needs improvement, but the question is the subject notable. The image that Martijn Hoekstra points to shows it has at least one significant source, and I'm sure there's more. The standards for notability aren't high, and any desktop OS, independently writte, actually used by a handful of people is going to meet that standard. Frankly, if we have a good article, why should we care if people point to the article for whatever reason, or copy (in accordance with the GFDL) for whatever reason? In this case, the subject is notable, so it's our job to make that article good.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - a magazine cover is a good place to start for significant sourcing. matt91486 (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - yes, it's a real open source project, no, it's not in any significant way notable. And the article is anecdotal and promotional rather than encyclopedic. Should every piece of vanityware on Sourceforge have a page here? Pete Fenelon (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Considering you have an entry Visopsys, yes Wikipedia should. How about AtheOS? These are both one man projects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.61.99 (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No, but I don't see anyone asking for that. The magazine cover seems to indicate that there is significant coverage in an independent reliable source. Unfortunately, I can't verify the contents of the magazine article myself, and I don't know how significant the coverage is. On the other hand, putting it on the cover of a magazine usualy means there is an in-depth article about it. That alone satisfies WP:N. That it's a real open source project is not really relevant to the discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • 22 other mentions of SkyOS on Wikipedia, passes the Google test with flying colors Alex Forster (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Wikipedia wiki-linking itself or "Google search results" are invalid forms of notability tests. Wikipedia requires reliable references from valid third parties. The only one approaching a notability test is the said Magazine cover you added. However, this lacks any details about the magazine or the contents, also making it invalid. If you have an real references, page numbers (etc), I suggest you add them to the article. Imacreditcard (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment: Can I ask you imacreditcard what your beef is with SkyOS, because obviously goes beyond a mere notability issue? Have you seen the number of small OS pages on Wikipedia that have far less citations? I don't see you hammering for the deletion of Visopsys, Atheos or HelenOS. A305w (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment: I have no beef with SkyOS, I have had beef with the way the article was presented. It's a much better article now, but it is not notable topic.
          • Comment: And Visopsys is? Why haven't you gone after that topic?A305w (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Imacreditcard (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Seems to be a significant project with enough media coverage. Given the smarts they're showing, I predict that this will be a notable OS when released, so why delete an article we'll have to recreate later? (BTW, SkyOS is not open-source, and is intended to be a commercial product one day. Also, the article needs a bit of copyediting.) CWC 13:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Useful, interesting, and informative article. I'm surprised this has been suggested for deletion twice. Sсοττ5834^talk 14:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article was nominated twice due to a misvote. Random IP addresses and user accounts voting twice plagued the last nomination and made it difficult for administrators to come to a clear decsion. Imacreditcard (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This sort of article is precisely what I come to the wiki for. How else are we to make a historical accounting of OS development 50 years from now? Maury (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It could clearly do with more development, but it seems notable enough (not a massive number of references, but I found enough to count it as being ok), and certainly of interest to those concerned with operating systems. - Bilby (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable, Media Covered, Notable - Significant to Operating System architectural progress; original and functional, not just an educational experiment, not just a fork of an existing operating system. Thinko 15:16, 10 March 2008
• Keep Well sourced, and has hopes of further sources in the future. --Falcorian ^(talk) 15:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I was one of those faceless IPs that posted on the last one of these AfD discussions. My stance doesn't change. SkyOS has a place in Wikipedia. GregV (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Needs more secondary sources (linking to the SkyOS website doesn't count), but the magazine cover linked above suggests enough notability to give this article a chance to collect such sources. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 22:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep SkyOS is notable merely for being a new, original OS that is not another Linux/BSD/Solaris distribution or clone of an previously existing OS. This is something that does not happen terribly often in the computing world. (I'd sign in with my actual username for this, but I've forgotten the password, and didn't have an email address associated with it. Sigh.) 121.45.69.253 (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. There is already a link in the article to the full text of the magazine found by Martijn. There are 3 pages of coverage starting on page 16. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Found is a big word here, the image was in the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Everyone just open eyes and check google with Sky OS over 1 000 000 results by now and growing. --GODhack (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Nice article on an interesting alternate OS. A305w (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This is a WP:SNOWBALL keep. We have to be carefull of using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an agrument... but it goes to say that WP:V is satisfied. The argument regarding WP:N for me is that it does appear to be valuable information and is part of a progression of operating systems. The article has fulfilled the criteria for notability.--Pmedema (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete The OS is nonnotable. Half is written like an advertisement, and the other half is completely unsourced. RogueNinja_talk 19:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The "nom" didn't even say "delete", let alone "strong delete", so what do you mean by that? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I confused this nomination with the previous one. I have added a better rationale.

• Keep. Informative - even if this isn't the post popular OS in the world. For those who think the content is a bit too promotional - rather than delete it, why not edit it to make it more NPOV?--Rich0 (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. SkyOS does in fact have a fairly significant user base, and the magazine thing shows independent coverage. Wikipedia has articles on projects far, far less significant than this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.165.95 (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep --LimoWreck (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Please justify your votes, this is not a votation, but a discussion of reasons --Enric Naval (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Has some independient third party source, including mentions on slashdot, and is under development, so it will probably become more famous with time --Enric Naval (talk) 11:40, 15 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Walknut

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. One release. No evidence of significant coverage. Michig (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Even Encyclopaedia Metallum's entry on them is sparse and lists no label. And, of course, their homepage just happens to be on MySpace.... --jonny-mt 16:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep They already appear in an encyclopedia on heavy metal music as mentioned above. As Wikipedia does not differentiate between general and specialist topics and this article can be sourced there does not appear to be a reason to delete it. Catchpole (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Hardly significant coverage or a reliable source, which is what's required for notability.--Michig (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability isn't a core concern. Catchpole (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What? Notability and verifiability are the two main things an article needs.--Michig (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:02, 10 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 nomination withdrawn. Addhoc (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Venkanna H. Naik

Venkanna H. Naik (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability concerns - lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Addhoc (talk) 16:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete strange and unsourced, possibly a hoax possibly true ya just don't knowCholga^talK! 17:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked sock. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Unreferenced and badly written. Dreamspy (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• • It would be more constructive to clean-up articles which are unreferenced and badly written than deleting them. --Oldak Quill 15:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:DVote per nom and Dreamspy CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I have added a reference to the article that confirms the the subject was District collector (the senior colonial government official) of Bijapur District, which has a present-day population of about 2 million. This would make him roughly equivalent to a mayor of Houston or Brisbane. I think that gets him past WP:BIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. There seem to be plenty of independent book sources out there (see refs and http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=%22V.+H.+Naik%22). --Oldak Quill 15:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - the sources seem to show notability. matt91486 (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Phil Bridger above. I'm not sure about the sources, as from what I can tell they seem to be little more than passing mentions, but the position certainly confers notability. --jonny-mt 16:23, 9 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

[edit] Flexvibes

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

Non notable software, failing WP:N. No independent reliable sources, or any assertion of notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: this software was simultaniously tagged for {{db-web}}. (Twinkleconflict)

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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The rituals

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

I believe this is an unremarkable band, and is not notable. So far there are no references, and although there are indications of notability (three albums "in active" for what that means, and touring through a number of countries). However, seeing the lack of independent reliable sources, these indications of notability should not be seen as proof of notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete CSD:A7 Band web site (therituals.com) listed on MySpace page does not resolve. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Unfortunately, I don't think this is quite speediable, as it does attempt to justify notability with the touring comment - but with no sources, and nothing reliable to be found (I used "the rituals" band verona -wikipedia -myspace on Google), there's no way they meet notability standards. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete - it should be speedied, really, but I'm not sure it can be either. Ale_Jrb^talk 23:09, 9 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. Whichever way I look at it, I don't see that this band passes WP:MUSIC. No prejudice to re-creation should they do so in the future, of course. Black Kite 20:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miniature Tigers

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

White Magic EP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Black Magic EP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable band with little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Including 2 EPs by the band, similarly unreferenced, with little or no media coverage. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:23, 9 March 2008 [(UTC)
• Delete, a Google search brings up nothing but blog hits and other unreliable sources. I have to admit though, the idea of a classical group that sound like Weezer is incredibly amusing... AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep a review on them at www.pheonixnewtimes.com and at www.urb.com really says alot about them. --Thebluesharpdude (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The Urb piece is part of a contest/promotion ("The Next 1000") and is not a review. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  •  Keep  Rolling Stone Magazine declared Miniature Tigers one of the top 25 best bands on MySpace. --Thebluesharpdude (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Note: Only one !vote per editor, please. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony}
    • Comment While a mention in Rolling Stone (or, rather, on their website) is a good indication that they may become notable in the near future, having your band's name listed with 24 other bands (and nothing more) isn't much in the way of coverage. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per information provided above. Catchpole (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Sources aren't sufficient to establish notability: the Rolling Stone mentions them in a subjective list of the "Top 25 Bands on MySpace." Looks promising but not up to the requirements yet. Plutonium27 (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. While the Rolling Stones listing is a pretty good start, I agree with those arguing that it doesn't tip this band over the notability line. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:30, 16 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Kozioł

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

Non-notable per WP:ATHLETE. Paddel Netret also seems to be a nn competitor (GHits). Visor (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find any proof this guy even exists, let alone these awards. Borders on a hoax ... almost G3-able in my book. I won't object if another admin decides to pull the trigger on this one, though. Blueboy96 15:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Kozioł does exist, he is just not as famous in as he is in Poland. Ford Prefect 2 15:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • But still there are no claims of notability. Visor (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - nomination shows unfortunate systemic bias problems - David Gerard (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete; since when has Canada had systemic bias issues? As far as I can tell from the article, he boxed in Canada. Was this deleted before: [21] is one of the few hits I see to anything to this article. The article doesn't give enough evidence to really research it; I'm not sure anything in there counts as a statement of notability. What tournament? When? None of the other boxers are showing up on searches. If not completely bogus, I'm going with completely nonnotable. --Prosfilaes (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably a hoax. - Darwinek (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notable, whose claim to fame is defeating Paddel Netret, who also retrieves zero google hits. Kingturtle (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Establishes he won a lightweight championship. More details are needed, but there's a clear claim of notability. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Since when are all lightweight championships notable? And it doesn't establish that he won anything; it claims it, with no sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Regardlss. There is a claim of notability. The nomination was done with what appears to be very little thought about the issue. The article has been created twice with similar facts but different wording. Let's slow down and do a bit more than punch it into Google and declare that all necessary research is done. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Who cares if there's a claim of notability, especially if it's a lie? Uncited, unverifiable crap like this does Wikipedia's readers no good. You have five days; that's plenty of time to find something about him. --Prosfilaes (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Self-evidently a hoax as we can see from the original. WP:CSD#G3 may apply although I'm happy enough to let this run its course. Notability? This fails WP:V. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It is different in the old version because I misinterpreted data and ended up changing its context signifigantly.Ford Prefect 2 13:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford Prefect 2 (talk • contribs)
• Delete as par nominationCoffeepusher (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• I can't access original as it only seems to be available to admins. But I'm confident that as an admin Angus McLellan knows of what he speaks, and so I will vote delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• There's an AFD for the previous incarnation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Koziol. Basically the current version has tap dancing, different parents, a different date of birth, a different number of fights undefeated, and a different parting speech. Everything else, including the improbably existence of Czechoslovakia before WWI, is the same. Ford Prefect 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) edited the previous article to add that "Legend has it he invented the very first candy floss machine during his retirement". His deleted contributions show him to be a serial creator of hoaxes and nonsense. Phil Sandifer and David Gerard are wrong on this one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, I see not much neither in sources nor in notability.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - article shows unfortunate unverifiability bias problems. --Dragonfiend (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Nominator was incorrect to claim non-notable as there is a claim of notability in the article but without any sources, it does not meet WP:V. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - thoroughly notable if the story was true and we'll understand someone born in 1870 won't get much coverage on internet, still some shred of reference is required to prove that that person really existed. greg park avenue (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources are found. None of the names turn up anything and they all sound made up, particularly after reading the Canadian Encyclopedia's article on Canadian boxing [22]. Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Kozioł himself wanted to take a course on tap dancing but his father urged him to take a course on boxing. Kozioł never tapped again." Come on, this is obviously a hoax.:) Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Closed. Already deleted. Just not closed out. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noveninsk

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

Unreferenced, no GHits, may be a hoax. Visor (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax, unless some reliable source is provided. This looks very doubtful: (a) it's not in the big Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World, which shows smaller towns than this is supposed to be; (b) the image presented as "one of three major streets in Noveninsk" is actually entitled "Main Square in Rzeszów" - a town which does exist, some way away; the identical picture can be seen in its article Rzeszów; (c) the lat. and long. provided are in a peculiar format, with decimal points of degrees and minutes, so it's not clear just what the alleged position is. JohnCD (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious WP:HOAX. Also consider Andrzej Koswakij who is alleged to be mayor of this nonexistent town... Pete Fenelon (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per JohnCD. This appears to be a hoax. --Oakshade (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete almost certainly a hoax. — BillC ^talk 17:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as par the above discussionCoffeepusher (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Deleted it as a hoax — Rlevse • Talk • 20:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Closed. Already deleted, just not closed out. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andrzej Koswakij

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