Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 May 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 10 May 12 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sandeep Johri

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

Non notable business executive, failing WP:BIO. Fair number of hits on google. About 400, but most seem to be social networking, mirrors of zoominfo, couple of bits in newspapers where is is quoted about something HP is doing. Started a company called Oblix in the 1990s (incidentally the name of the article author) and he is currently a VP of strategy and planning at Hewlett Packard. Nothing earth shattering that would seem to make a prima facie case for notability. Montco (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Blueboy96 17:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • weak keep a google search seems to turn up a bunch of minor mentions, nothing really in depth, so it looks like it might be possible to create an article that passes WP:BIO. The article is also very new. I would err on the side of keeping it for a while longer to see if anyone actually expands it. Wrs1864 (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Quercus basaseachicensis (talk) 20:23, 15 May 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 00:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sim junta

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

A freeware game. Google finds blog mentions, bulletin board posts, astroturfing, and no reliable third-party sources at all. Prod was removed by an anon claiming independent sources aren't important for video games. —Cryptic 23:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete - Article lacks notability. Also WP:RS. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dumping ground. Nk.sheridan   Talk 00:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, with reference to WP:TOYS, a proposed Wikipedia policy/guideline: "Homebrew games, shareware or freeware games, individual MAME cabinets, and bar-top touchscreen type games (containing several games like Poker, Reversi and Tetris) are not likely to be notable." Since this game does not meet the standards of the umbrella policy WP:N, specifically, no apparent coverage in reliable, third-party sources - this article should be deleted. Tan | 39 02:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - Lacks any sort of notability. asenine say what? 06:37, 12 May 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. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Mark Tom and Travis Story

The Mark Tom and Travis Story (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined PROD. This article is about a forthcoming book, that is apparently currently being written. As such, it does not meet the notability guidelines for books. There can be no critical commentary because there is no book, is not available for many of the other criteria, and the book's author does not meet the standard required for works to be automatically accepted. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, book appears to be forthcoming, by an unknown author, promoting the upcoming book on MySpace. Clearly not notable, and WP:CRYSTAL in any case. KleenupKrew (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not notable, and violates WP:CRYSTAL. asenine say what? 06:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Also, someone removed the AfD tag, as I was listing it myself, but ended up with a pre-made argument. How about that?! The book is written by a fan (ie not notable), is unofficial, and has not even been written yet, so doesn't exist to require a page. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Quercus basaseachicensis (talk) 20:24, 15 May 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 00:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crunk Club

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Crunk Club
Crunk Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)(delete) – (View AfD)
Broken into Pieces (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Per WP:MUSIC songs must meet the notability criteria which states that to be notable a topic must have received significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources. This does not appear to be the case for this unreleased single and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In this case the artist does not even have appear to have a page. Guest9999 (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong delete. The artist's page was speedily deleted for failing to assert notability. Non-notable single from a non-notable artist. Note that Broken into Pieces can be deleted under the same rationale. I am adding it to this AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - Per WP:MUSIC. asenine say what? 06:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominator of Broken into Pieces. Fails WP:MUSIC Fritzpoll (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Original editor has blanked Crunk Club and attempted to blank Broken into Pieces. I'm not neutral in this debate, or I'd close showing the intent was to request deletion and speedy delete both under author request. Does anybody else agree? —C.Fred (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It didn't seem clear yesterday that this was the case. I would let the AfD run unless we're absolutely sure that it is what the author wants. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:44, 13 May 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar

Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't think the subject of this page is notable per WP:BIO1E. The event he is notable for is, of course, well-known within UNC, but is it notable by Wikipedia standards? Most sources are local to the Triangle. A secondary issue is a large part of the page is also a cut and paste of various letters. It's been a couple of years since the event, so hopefully notability is easier to gauge now. Artichoke2020 (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep Keep and Move - Appears to be WP:NOTABLE to me as has multiple secondary sources. If there is a copyvio issue from "cut and paste of various letters" then please detail it. Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The two sections that are letters. I don't know if they are strictly speaking copyvios.
Is it Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar who is notable, or the event? Should the page be renamed to reflect the event over the person. My feeling that it's the event, and so if the event meets WP:N then maybe the page should be moved. If consensus is the person is notable I'm happy for it to stay as is. Obviously if neither, then delete. Artichoke2020 (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I've fixed the letters / quotes issue. I've also tidied some information that's actually in Wikiquote and Wikisource and probably doesn't need to be duplicated here in full. Artichoke2020 (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment I'd agree with User:Artichoke2020 that it is the event which is notable rather than the person so have changed my opinion to move, perhaps to Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack as suggested. Nk.sheridan   Talk 17:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: the guy ran his car into people intentionally for political/religious reasons--a very unusual event. A2Kafir (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly - event - should we move to a page about the event? (Though I'm not sure I agree it's very unusual from a worldwide perspective.) Artichoke2020 (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment If this is notable as an event, I'm thinking of something like a move to something along the lines of Taheri-azar incident (or at least something better than that). Any suggestions? Artichoke2020 (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to March 2003 UNC attack (or something like that) and modify accordingly. What is notable here is the event and its aftermath, not so much the person himself; all the coverage available seems to be primarily about the event. In fact, the current article already reads and is structured largely as an article about the event, so there would not be that much to change. Nsk92 (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and only move to another name if there is another name by which the event is known (i.e. avoid original research. There is no difference in Wikipedia policy depending on how the article is named; we can satisfy all relevant policies under the present name. For some reason changing the name makes sense to some editors and affects AFD outcomes, but there is no policy-based reason for changing the name. --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - ...and preferably move it to a better name. asenine say what? 06:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Several sources use "SUV attack" in their headlines, so my proposal for move would be to Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar SUV attack. I think leaving the name as it is implies a biography. Artichoke2020 (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - As is. The man is the cause of the event. SuMadre (talk) 22:16, 13 May 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 deleted by Ohnoitsjamie under A7 (web). asenine say what? 06:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ecotube

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

Megapen (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete I don't see any notability. Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete little notability asserted, few Google hits (most for environmentally friendly tubing, rather than this website -- in fact, this newly created article ranks much higher than the site itself); author seems to be more interested in pushing his viewpoint [1] than in demonstrating notability. nneonneo talk 00:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:06, 12 May 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:N. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Belfast study

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

This is merely a summary of a research study. ZimZalaBim talk 22:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable study, as far as I can determine, and the article doesn't assert any specific notability. There is a study on alcoholism called the "Belfast Study" which seems to be somewhat notable, but it's not the same one as this one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable Quercus basaseachicensis (talk) 20:27, 15 May 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. Articles on individual TV episodes are just slightly controversial these days. I looked at the recent Arbcom case and at Talk:List of Happy Tree Friends episodes, to find out the opinion of those editors on having individual episode articles. I'm confident that a Delete verdict (as favored by a majority of the editors below) does fit with current policy. There is no bar to re-creation of the article if reliable sources can be found showing out-of-universe notability. There is not really anything to merge because the proposed target article already has a table entry for this episode containing everything that will fit in the cells. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Arbcom

[edit] Class Act (Happy Tree Friends)

Class Act (Happy Tree Friends) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't think that individual Happy Tree Friends episodes meet the general notability guidelines, and that List of Happy Tree Friends episodes is enough. There are many other individual Happy Tree Friends episode article, and though I do not list them all in this AfD, and individual articles should be treated on their merits, notability issues, and the best course of action will probably coincide for most of those episodes. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:59, 11 May 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 00:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Low Level Debug

Low Level Debug (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy and declined prod; WP:NOT a how-to site. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:55, 11 May 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) Cenarium (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anup Soni

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

I rejected the A7 CSD on this actor bio. Procedural nom, not checked for sources yet, so I'm neutral on the issue for now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I really wish editors could be given a bit more time to develop articles before their newly minted stubs get tagged for CSDs and AFDs. Anyway, this Indian actor has appeared in 13 films according to IMDB [2], and his performances, often in leading roles, noted in 112 newspaper articles on googlenews [3] He seems to easily meet WP:ENTERTAINER Keep--Slp1 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Satisfies WP:NOTABLE guideline for an entertainer. Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is demonstrated by sources. I'm not sure what is meant here by a "procedural nom". What procedure mandates that declined speedy deletions have to go to AfD? And that this should be done within 5 minutes of article creation and without the usual pre-nomination checks? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't have to nom it by any procedures, and agree my wording was ill chosen. Still, in this case, I thought it was better to gain a wider discussion/consensus on inclusion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per references now in article. 50 lashes with a wet noodle to original speedier for requesting speedy within minutes of creation without checking for sources.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the IMDB link was there right from the start, so an initial check for sources has always been pretty darn easy! [4]--Slp1 (talk) 18:28, 12 May 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:NEO. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bloglomerate

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

Neologism, fraught with unsourced POV statements, and if rectified, will likely be little more than a dictionary definition. ZimZalaBim talk 21:30, 11 May 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) The consensus is that a disambiguation page should exist at Dr. Acula. Darkspots (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Acula

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

I rejected the CSD of this band per some coverage, however, it seems to be thin, and mainly press releases. They have two albums out, but not on a major indie label. (at least not that I know of). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment an indie label did re-release SLOB, but I'm not sure what it was. --76.219.183.141 (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • the label was called 187 records, and they are now signed to Uprising. --Emotivia (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment perhaps Silver-lipped Operator of Bullshit should be included if the speedy is declined. nneonneo talk 22:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as revised. Until January of this year, this article had been a disambiguation page for various "Dr. Acula"s which did not have content enough of their own to warrant full articles, but each of which had its own fans. Then the fans of the Long Island band Dr. Acula decided to take over the page and eliminate the other disambiguation choices. Since then, the article has been deleted and re-created three times (one of which was not the band's article, but an article about the fictional screenplay discussed on Scrubs). I have restored the page to a disambiguation page. If the band Dr. Acula can establish notability, its article should be placed at Dr. Acula (band) instead. (Disclaimer: I created the disambiguation page in December 2006.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as a useful disambiguation page. Zagalejo^^^ 03:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep: this afd is really about Dr. Acula (band), which does not exist. Plrk (talk) 10:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The article contains no information that is attributed to reliable sources. The link to the organization's web site at www.68dli.co.uk is worth keeping, but that website is already linked from the article on the 68th (Durham) Regiment of Foot (Light Infantry). EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 68th Society and Display Team

68th Society and Display Team (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There's no indication that this is a notable organisation, and I haven't found anything that would make it notable. The only Google hits are Wikipedia and its mirrors, and it gets no Google News hits. AecisBrievenbus 21:18, 11 May 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 Scottsdale Unified School District. No sourced content to merge.  Sandstein  19:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copper ridge middle school

Copper ridge middle school (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Rather short article about a nn Arizona middle school. Article does not assert the importance of its subject. Google pulls up some things, but next to nothing to establish notability. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 20:24, 11 May 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 consensus ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Levy (MMA Fighter)

Scott Levy (MMA Fighter) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article, suspected hoax; I could not find a record here and that website in effect provides records for all notable fighters. Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Not only unreferenced, but the article is a POV nightmare. I would agree that this looks like a possible hoax. Chicken Wing (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete if Sherdog doesnt have him, its doubtful that he is a real fighter RogueNinjatalk 15:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as a Hoax - Missed it 1st time: "Unverified but Diesel may have fought in the first years UFC in 1994-1995." There are no such thing as unverified UFC records, and Sherdog would have anyone who was even an alternate to a UFC bout. --Nate1481(t/c) 07:36, 14 May 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 Www.Revisionists.com speedily deleted (G11) by Jmlk17. Redirect at title below deleted by Jpgordon per R1. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Historical revisionism (revisionists)

List of Historical revisionism (revisionists) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of "revisionists" from this website. I have no idea what this article is supposed to be (even the title doesn't make any sense to me).There's a pretty large overlap with Category:Holocaust deniers, but according to the source website's bios, not all people on this website are holocaust deniers or even historians. Currently it borders WP:CSD#A1: Speedy deletion for lack of context. Huon (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Revise to make it look like it never existed, through the process of deletion. Kind of like an indiscriminate list, except no blue-links or red-links Mandsford (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Confusion. I'm the author of the Original Article (OA). The OA was just a little while ago Speedily Deleted by User:Jpgordon. It was suggest by him that it was a "Cut & Paste" - whatever that meens. Based on a discussion with a user named Huan, the word "Copyright" came up. This is mainly a WP:List. And in order to insure it from deletion - I supplied the List alone - that is absolutely not subject tp copyright infringement. However, I used a REDIRECT page to do that. The original page is in Limbo - not being an Administrator, I do not know much about such stuff. However, I think User: Jpgordon is an expert on the matter. If you ask him, I'm sure he can clarify everything. Cheers Wikipedians! --!!!!
  • Here's what happened (--Ludvikus (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)):
    (Deletion log); 16:55 . . Jpgordon (Talk | contribs)
         deleted "Talk:List of Historical revisionism (revisionist historians)"
         (G8: Orphaned talk page of non-existent or deleted page) 
    (Deletion log); 16:54 . . Jpgordon (Talk | contribs)
         deleted "List of Historical revisionism (revisionist historians)"
        (Copyvio; cut-and-paste from www.revisionsists.com)
  • Copyvio. I see now in the above a Good Faith belief that there was a Copyright infringement. I did not/do not agree. But that can no longer be the case because I used the DAB page to re-write the article as a stub - keeping only a WP:List of names. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Restore old page(s). I do not know now how to proceed. I think the best is to do a Merge, But I have no access to the Old page because it was deleted by Jpgordon. Please advise. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. What's this meant to be? A list of any historian who's disagreed with previously published views? CSD A1 or CSD G1. Even the title makes no sense. Jheald (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment These people may or may not be individually notable, but they don't belong to a common organization (though many are related to the Institute for Historical Review in one way or another). For example, without some reliable sources, I'd doubt that Jean-Marie Le Pen and Hans Schmidt share any membership. Schmidt isn't even a historian for all we can tell. By now the article has been turned into one about the website, but it still fails the notability criterion WP:WEB and has no secondary sources. Huon (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for being blunt, but could you please make up your mind whether this is supposed to be a list of people or an article on a website? And do you really think that "People listed on some random website" is a proper topic for an encyclopedia article? Yes, some of the people listed on the website are notable, and we have articles on them: Ernst Zündel, for example. But what makes the list itself "extremely important"? Huon (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • (1) This is intended to be a list of Notable members of the movement know as Historical Revisionism.
  • (2) These individuals are not that great in number and they are quite easy to identify.
  • (3) The 2 articles we have are based on their "Philosphy." Some now wish to distance themselves from Holocaust Denial - and have been quite successful in convincing editors at Wikipedia that there is such a thing as legitimate "Historical Revisionism" (there ain't). But they have apparent been quite successful in their persuation.
  • (4) What's the purpose of Lists at Wikipedia anyway? If there is one, these individuals fit the bill. And they are not shy or sheepish about their views.
  • (5) They also call themselves Revisionist Historians. And they have convinced some that they an extention of everyone who has been called a "Revisionist."
    • For all these reasons, it would be good for our Encyclopedia to identify the notable ones in order for all of us to know that we are reading the views of a particular school of thought known as Historical Revisionism. Unlike the Nazi party members after 1933, this group is as small as Hitler's collegues were in 1923.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete This is Ludvikus's second attempt, under a new name, to basically cut and paste this website into Wikipedia. It's a completely non-notable website if this is supposed to be an article about the website, and it's redunant if it's supposed to be a list--There is already a list in the Holocaust denial article. Speedy delete, and stop trying different tactics for turning that website into a Wikipedia article, please. Boodlesthecat Meow? 00:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That can be easily changed. It's merely one website (of many). The point is not the Wen site. It's the list I'm interested in. You are not addressing the issue. And there are no Copyright violations that you can even remotely suggest. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Yet again--there is already a list here. Try to pay attention to what people say here. Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete in its current version per criterion A7, as article about Web content with no indication of notability. Deor (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Ludvikus, the creator of the article, moved it to Www.Revisionists.com and has started to turn it into an article about the website whose list he copied and pasted. Another editor removed the AfD banner, and a third editor tagged it for WP:CSD#G11. I think that makes this discussion moot. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:15, 12 May 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 Snowball Delete --JForget 00:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of military controversies

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

This page is alleged to be a list of military controversies, but a closer inspection suggests that the page has OR issues and POV issues as well. These are thought by editers at MILHIST to be enough to warrent an afd for the article, as we do not think it can be salvaged, therefore I have filed this afd to begin the process for removing the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As per previous comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is an indiscriminate list (almost any military action will be by nature "controversial", as there are two sides of the tale at minimum), and connects things that are only loosely related to each other. By extension, it creates a coatrack, perhaps you could say a coatrack in reverse, by placing things out of context adjacent to each other, which implies some kind of equivalence. The first example is perfect in showing the tendentious aspects of this list. Surely someone has looked back in history and found actions to be labeled "war crimes" by modern standards, but those standards (widely ignored even today) didn't even have the merest conception in their day. It's sort of bizarre to do this, and not encyclopedic. --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - Per nom's concerns. asenine say what? 20:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Quite obviously POV and biased, should be deleted immediately Skinny87 (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per all of the above.--Looper5920 (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Although the article could, perhaps, be rewritten to eliminate most of the narrative, I feel that it's more insulting to have one person revise the work of another beyond recognition, than it is to have a group of people argue that the work be taken down. Although I find the article to be interesting, and have saved it to my computer, it doesn't comply with Wikipedia's policies. Mandsford (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, there can never be qualify criteria for this, that wouldn't be POV/OR. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV and WP:COATRACK article, nothing here that isn't already covered in the individual articles. KleenupKrew (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not sure if this was intended as a POV fork of List of War Crimes, but that article exists, and is well-referenced, and less arbitrary with respect to inclusion. --MCB (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kyriakos (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It's articles like this which give indiscriminate lists of information a bad name. The contents of this article are a random collection of distasteful incidents and attrocities, few of which are actually controversial, with some OR commentary and I don't think that it can be salvaged. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - the article actually fails to define what a military controversy is. I would actually suggest that there is a place for such a list, however, it would be useful to first create a definition and go from there. Current article is actually a collection of mostly war crimes which have lists already. I'd say a military controversy would be the failure of the US Army to adopt the UK's 17lb gun during Second World War, or the order By Stalin for troops not to prepare for combat on the 21 June 1941 despite ample indicators, the focus on building bombers by the RAF prior to 1939. I.e. controversial decisions that impacted primarily on military operations.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with comments of mrg3105 above. The current version of the article is unsalvageable and should be deleted.--Whiskey (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:SNOW? --ROGER DAVIES talk 14:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, its already been said why. I never thought someone would be able to tie Gitmo, the holocaust, and the Teutoberg Forest in the same article... but I was wrong. MrPrada (talk) 07:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Roger Davies - how many of us saying the same thing does it take...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 14 May 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 00:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dublin University Publications Committee

Dublin University Publications Committee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable internal committee within Trinity College, Dublin; as a comment on the talk page says of this article, "What's the point?"

The only reference in the article is to the committee's own website, and a Google News search returns nothing ... so it fails WP:N (no independent references). —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 11 May 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 00:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] S.m.o.g.

S.m.o.g. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this neologism doesn't seem to have received the kind of coverage from reliable sources to write an encylopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete This has clearly become an attack page. Someone keeps posting peoples names on the page. [User:Ecoli0157|Ecoli0157]] (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not really worth saving.--Mblumber (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

are people homophobes around here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddygotfingers (talk • contribs) 20:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Fails inclusion criteria. And no, the majority of us are not homophobes. asenine say what? 20:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - No, we're not, but this is a non-notable neologism, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang. JohnCD (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. There doesn't seem to be any reliable sources that verify the subject. Rnb (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Save this one for the Webster Dictionary's year-end listing of new words, if it is truly a new expression. And the comment/question regarding perceived homophobia among the editors was not appropriate for this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I hope anyone who uses this term gets slapped hard, gay or not. Otherwise, unnotable and seems made up (especially from a user who has the title of that horrendous Tom Green bomb as their username). Nate • (chatter) 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable WP:NEO / not-a-dictionary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete idiotic. JuJube (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, falls afoul of our neologism notability guideline. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC).
  • Speedy Delete as attack page; csd template added. Most of the above comments refer to older versions of this article before it became an attack page. Merenta (talk)
Comment I removed the attack from the article. It was vandalism added by an anon. Declined the speedy. However, the issue may be moot as this appears to be headed for a snowball close. Dlohcierekim 13:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as there is no assertion of significance in the article. Contrarily, it states this is "new gay lingo." I find no examples on the web of this usage, beyond urban dictionary, which is not a reliable, verifiable source. All that said, it would still be no more than a not notableneologism or dicdef. Dlohcierekim 18:04, 12 May 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 00:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dublin University Central Societies Committee

Dublin University Central Societies Committee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable university committee. Yes, it's quite significant to student societies with in Trinity College, Dublin, for inclusion in wikipedia it needs to demonstrate notability by substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. A Google News search for "Dublin University Central Societies Committee" OR "Central Societies Committee" returns only one trivial mention in an article about someone else. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 11 May 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 00:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Enda Mac Nally

Enda Mac Nally (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable artist: no refs to reliable sources, let alone substantial coverage of him, so he fails WP:BIO. A Google News search throws up no hits for him. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was delete as lies. DS (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alice digby

The 21st no less in line to the Monegasque Throne, now is this claim alone enough to meet the notability guidelines? Personally I think not. Polly (Parrot) 19:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Subject is non-notable. Minor royal in a minor Principality Dreamspy (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. My rule of thumb, in the absence of a standard, is that only title holders or their direct progeny should have articles barring separate notability. Also, Geogre's Law applies. --Dhartung | Talk 20:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable. asenine say what? 20:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I smell a rat. A Geogre's law-failing article with a very non-Monegasque-sounding name; a hasty, misspelt addition to the bottom of Line of succession to the Monegasque Throne claiming a 19th ranking (the nominated article initially claimed 31st, then it was changed to 21st); a "grandmother" whose two children are both without issue (the elder of whom turned sixteen on the day Alice was born); and the kicker, "Alice Digby"+Monaco-Wikipedia returns zero ghits. Looks like a hoax to me. Grutness...wha? 01:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Utter bollocks. -- Roleplayer (talk) 09:18, 13 May 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:N. Although unreleased, there is significant secondary coverage and therefore WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Project H.A.M.M.E.R.

Project H.A.M.M.E.R. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Has previously been prodded by different editors on a couple of occasions. The game doesn't seem notable to me, it's never been released, and the article's infobox says it's on indefinite hold. I don't see any evidence that this game will ever be released. Bingobangobongoboo (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:CRYSTAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asenine (talk • contribs)
Delete - If or when it does get released, the article will belong here. As of today, however, it doesn't belong. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep - There's lots of articles about vaporware such as SimMars, Duke Nukem Forever, and Starcraft Ghost. This is a pretty notable Wii game that has a decent amount written about it. It's a notable and verifiable game. Just look at the huge number of references. The fact that it may never be released does not disqualify it from wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Certainly received enough press to be worth noting, even if it never again sees the light of day. Nifboy (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep - passes WP:N. The topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, so it is notable. Una LagunaTalk 06:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep; there is strong precedent (see Randomran) for articles about unreleased games that have nonetheless recieved coverage. This is not crystal-worthy. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per my fellow WP:VG editors. User:Krator (t c) 11:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Unreleased, but it's received sufficient third-party coverage for an article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:04, 12 May 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 Ernescliff College; no consensus about the other two.  Sandstein  20:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medway-Sydenham Hall

Medway-Sydenham Hall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am also nominating for deletion:

Ernescliff College (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Saugeen-Maitland Hall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

All three of these article are about residence halls that do not rise to the level of encyclopedic notability. I would be happy to withdraw this nomination or change my mind if additional evidence were offered. ElKevbo (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have dropped a note on the Talk page for the Universities Wikiproject to generate thorough discussion of this nomination. --ElKevbo (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Saugeen-Maitland Hall. This residence is infamous in the region, and most university students in Ontario have heard of the residence and its reputation. There many media sources cited in this article, so it is very newsworthy, and thus encyclopedic. It should also be noted that the Saugeen Stripper article was eventually merged into this article. The general consensus was that the 'stripper' event on its own wasn't deserving of its own article, but it would be acceptable as part of the residence article. See discussions here and here. Rawr (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Might it be helpful and more worthwhile to go ahead and separate out that article's nomination from the other two? I do not agree that Saugeen-Maitland Hall is notable but I can understand how others can hold that opinion as it is somewhat different from the other two articles. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
You're the nominator, so you can do what you like. But I should point out that there are many other residences and dorms in wikipedia, so if you nominate these 3, you should nominate all of them. Go to Category:University and college residential buildings and take a look. Going down through the sub-categories, I count over 100, and I'm guessing most of them them are about as encyclopedic as these 3. So if you want to be fair, you have a lot of work ahead of you. Rawr (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
One step at a time... --ElKevbo (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Medway-Sydenham Hall. (No opinion on the other two articles for the moment). No independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability. GoogleNews returns nothing.[6] Fails WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Ernescliff College and Saugeen-Maitland Hall as well. For Ernescliff College there is nothing in GoogleBooks[7] and a single hit in GoogleNews[8]. Fails WP:N. For Saugeen-Maitland Hall GoogleBooks has 6 hits[9], and GoogleNews has 4 hits [10], all with basically trivial coverage. The article on Saugeen-Maitland Hall cites a bunch of references, mostly to the local student paper, mostly about various goings-on in this residence hall. No independent reliable sources to indicate historical or architectural notability of the building. The bottom line is: fails WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep Medway-Sydenham Hall and Saugeen-Maitland Hall. I must take exception to either Google News or Google Books being lauded as reliable databases. More authoritative and news databases (e.g., LexisNexis) must be searched to make the claim that the item in question isn't notable. With free databases, you get what you pay for: an incomplete picture.Dansich (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all 3. The only one with any possible notability is S-M, and its altogether a trivial one. th earticle is a perennial BLP trap. and efforts to clean it up have been strongly resisted-- with understandable reason, because if it were, there wouldn't be anything left. DGG (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Ernescliffe College. The other two are owned and operated by a university, but Ernescliffe College, while located at the University of Toronto, is not owned by the University of Toronto, but rather by Opus Dei or an affiliated organization. The article is supported with a newspaper article, but the URL for the newspaper article doesn't seem to work. I have the feeling that some sudden development will eventually make Ernescliffe College unambiguously notable. --Eastmain (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep (with regret) Medway-Sydenham Hall and Saugeen-Maitland Hall. These two articles serve as good examples of how not to design or operate a university residence. Think of the history of both residence halls as a recreation of the Stanford prison experiment over a longer time-span. Yes, the bulk of the coverage is from the UWO Gazette, the student newspaper, and from Western News, the administration's paper, but there is no reason to question the reliability of either newspaper in this context. To the extent that Google News doesn't pick up all the references cited in either article, that is evidence of the weaknesses of Google News rather than the lack of notability of the article. The fact that an article attracts vandalism is not reason to delete it. --Eastmain (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • (Weak) Keep. I agree with Eastmain--keep the M-W and S-M articles. They both seem to be actively edited, which might be taken as a sign of an article's usefulness. BLP issues will have to be dealt with as they arise. The Ernescliff College article, however, is nearly nonexistent and receives no apparent attention and can be deleted without loss. --AnnaFrance (talk) 18:15, 13 May 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 consensus; WP:AIRCRASH. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Cessnas collision

2008 Cessnas collision (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

These are regular-ish occurences in general aviation. They do hit each other from time to time. If this exposes a massive flaw in Air Traffic Control operations I would reconsider, but for now I think this isn't quite notable enough. Please also see the draft notability guidlines produced by WP:AIRCRASH and the list of past AfD debates collected there. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nothing here to suggest this event is particularly notable from an encyclopedia perspective. In the event this is kept, it needs a better title. 23skidoo (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom - nothing make it unusual or notable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. - BillCJ (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't like the per nom statement, but this is a time when there isn't anything else to say except that. Per nom. Soxred93 (u t) 20:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Barring other evidence of notability, only fatal incidents on scheduled commercial flights are normally worthy of inclusion. Other types of incidents are simply too common. --Dhartung | Talk 20:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep My initial idea would have been to merge to Mid-air collision, but that's a list of incidents of which this is a part. While collisions in which one of the two planes is taking off or landing can be described as "regular-ish", it actually is unusual for two aircraft to collide in midair (and in this case, to rain debris over a populated area, killing someone on the ground). I'll register a "weak" keep, however; even after all of the edits that have been made, there's only one news story linked from the day after the accident, and no apparent attempt to follow up. Clearly, I'm in the minority on this one, so I don't know that anyone will bother to improve this. Mandsford (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Red has usually been very good about checking for relevant sources, and I've seen him "save" a few accident articles by adding cites that prove notability. I'm assuming he did some checking before making the nom, but he hasn't mentioned it. If such sources can be found at some point that show the lasting effects of the incident, the I'd support keeping then, or even restoring it if it's already been deleted. SOmetimes it takes awhile for events to have an effect, esp when buracracies are involved. PS, I've no experience in this type of research, and have a full plate with other WP matters, so I'll have to rely on others to do the research. - BillCJ (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I've done a little more digging and expanded manly from the NTSB report, but it has only served to make me feel this is even less notable. Uncontrolled airspace = no ATC blunders. No evasive action = no sign anyone realised easily avoidable accident was coming. That also means we may never know exactly what happened and if we do it was likely a lapse in concentration from both of those flying at once, with tragic consequences. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Fails notability criteria (no notable people involved). See this AfD discussion for details of notability criteria. Mjroots (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, notability is established by press coverage. Everyking (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable incident. Press coverage cited is nothing beyond routine. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • You don't think routine coverage is sufficient? And anyway, how much coverage would be necessary to exceed this "routine" level? Everyking (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per all the above, besides what is the spelling variation used here for the title? If it was a keep, imagine every accident report being posted, sigh... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC).
    • I can imagine it—we'd become a good resource on plane crashes! Everyking (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • That's Pprune's job! :-/ Mjroots (talk) 10:05, 16 May 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 00:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jersey Friday (Northwestern University)

Jersey Friday (Northwestern University) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fan cruft, uncited, not notable. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:25, 11 May 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 consensus; WP:AIRCRASH. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Cessna Compton crash

2008 Cessna Compton crash (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a very minor crash. No-one was injured, and hundereds of light aircraft crash in similar circumstances every day, usually with fatalities. Please also see the draft notability guidlines produced by WP:AIRCRASH and the list of past AfD debates collected there. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. As with the "2008 Cessnas collision" article above, there is nothing offered to suggest why this incident is in any way notable from an encyclopedic perspective. 23skidoo (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As per nom - just another non-notable accident. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Barring other evidence of notability, only fatal incidents on scheduled commercial flights are normally encyclopedic. All other incidents are simply too common. --Dhartung | Talk 20:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Gotta agree with the Sandman on this one. A small plane crashed on landing. Unlike a mid-air collision, this is a not uncommon occurrence. It's not unusual for a plane to crash on its way down to the ground. Mandsford (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails notability criteria (no notable people involved). See this AfD discussion for details of notability criteria. Mjroots (talk) 07:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - completely non-notable accident. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete see all the above ad infinitum... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete very non-notable accident. EA210269 (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ali Etemadi

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

No sign of being covered in secondary sources, first Google hit is his Myspace and the second is this Wikipedia page. No sign of being signed to any label, cf WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. The fact that the first Google hit is his Myspace and the second is this Wikipedia page just means that Google is doing a good job in terms of finding the pages people might be looking for. It's common to find for prominent musicians that their official site is the #1 Google hit and Wikipedia is #2 (although having Myspace as the official page might be considered a negative factor). The question is whether the Google hits after those indicate that the subject has received coverage from reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:50, 12 May 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. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Ahearn (privacy consultant)

Frank Ahearn (privacy consultant) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Person is not notable. For someone who "has given talks on popular media", one unrelated Google News hit is not impressive. Punkmorten (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete agree that the one hit isn't enough. Non-notable. Izzy007 Talk 18:52, 11 May 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.  Sandstein  19:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books: 'Out of Darkness Unto Light'

The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books: 'Out of Darkness Unto Light' (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Rather like Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins (currently at AfD), all we seem to have is an advert: inticement to buy via external links, no evidence of notability and the only content is a table of contents. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedily delete per G11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatWikiGuy (talk • contribs)


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

The result was Delete. The current version of the article does not appear to satisfy the expressed wishes of the Keep voters, since it contains *no* entries for which there is sourced information to show notability. (The closest one is the Afghan friendship group, which is undergoing its own AfD at present). If we restrict the list to include only those friendship groups for which sources are provided, it would have either no entries or just a single entry. That would not be much of a list. I will provide a version of the article for anyone who wants to work on it in their user space, for adding sources. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Pakistan friendship associations

List of Pakistan friendship associations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is simply List of non-notable organizations. Per WP:NOT, wikipedia is not an collection of random NN information. The page was prod'd, but the creator has removed prod, so I'm bringing it to AFD. Ragib (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOT; specifically, not a directory. This would be better suited to a phone book, or rather a web directory. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and limit to only notable entries. There currently exists a "Friends of Israel" article that no one is about to delete. This article should be kept, minus any unsourced, and superfluous info. Bless sins (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The article currently has no superfluous information ... it is just a list. However, the notability of such associations is questionable, and that's what we are discussing in this AFD. --Ragib (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, you mean, despite being Non-notable by themselves, you'd support "keep"? --Ragib (talk) 23:12, 11 May 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. Bduke (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Eden (wrestler)

Steve Eden (wrestler) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability is shown, and there are no references. King iMatthew 2008 17:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Now added. Darrenhusted (talk)
  • Delete per nom. --Jklamo (talk) 00:41, 19 May 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. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lian Ross

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC. Wizardman 17:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If notability can be established in the article through reliable, real-world sources, I'll withdraw the nom. Wizardman 17:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
NME: www.nme.com/video/id/ZJcNpM7Bjso/search/%5Blian, dozens of lyrics sites, everywhere I look on Google there is an option to either buy her records or view videos. She is a former Polydor Records artist which immediately makes her notable. http://www.musicstack.com/records-cds/lian+ross. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 17:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and this: http://www.zyx.de/ if you go to artists, under L, you'll see her name. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 18:02, 11 May 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. Frankly this AfD has been so distorted by nationalist POV-pushing and votestacking that any result would have been meaningless anyway, even if one side had predominated. ChrisO (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aegean Macedonians

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

Blatant POV fork    Avg    17:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong delete - Obvious POV fork based on an irredentist term. --Laveol T 17:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Further comment - although the article has an Under construction tag it is already turning into a magnet for blatant POV pushing. I'm afraid it's used for a junkyard for all the POV qualifiers normally not allowed on the other Macedonia-related articles. Considering all this I change my vote from Delete to Strong delete.--Laveol T 22:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment for someone who wants to strongly delete the page, you seem pretty active on it. P m kocovski (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Why? --Thinboy00 @766, i.e. 17:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Appears to be a POV fork. Nsk92 (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep why to delete? --MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge (see below) 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment POV fork of what? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    Of Macedonians (ethnic group), also pushing a specific POV (by using irredentist terms), which states all Slavophone Greeks have a Slavic Macedonian conscience.--   Avg    20:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    What are u talking about Avg???--Raso mk (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    I Have never written that all slavophone greeks have an ethnic macedonian identity. Because they dont! Only some identify as ethnic macedonians.P m kocovski (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    What "Aegean Macedonians" means in the first place? It means the Macedonians who come from "Aegean Macedonia" (an already controversial term). Well it happens that there are 2.5 million people in "Aegean Macedonia" who are Greeks. They should also be "Aegean Macedonians", but they're not even mentioned to your article. Anyway, forgetting that, you've started an article detailing the Slavic migration to Macedonia and the Slavic culture in Macedonia, thereby automatically creating the connection that all Slavophones = Ethnic Macedonians. And on top of that you put in the mix dubious figures, controversial claims, irredentist beliefs. So to sum it up: POV fork.--   Avg    22:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    No, it is a regional identifier used by ethnic macedonians to distinguish themselves from other ethnic macedonians. Greeks use the term Greek Macedonian, ethnic macedonians use the term Aegean Macedonian. AND no i am not implying that all the slavophone greeks identify as macedonians, the fact that they share a similar culture and heritage to the ethnic macedonians is UNAVOIDABLE. That is no reason delete an article because they have similarities to another group of people! Dubious figures, go and have a look at the many greek pages and then tell me about dubious figures. Oh, and if i was being irredentist there would be 1,000,000 ethnic macedonians in greece, that is irredentist.P m kocovski (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    Since you mentioned it, Greeks use the term "Macedonian" and not "Greek Macedonian". This is how they identify themselves. Please have a look at Macedonia (terminology) if you have doubts about it. Now the primary reason to delete this article is that it was created to bypass the established NPOV in Ethnic Macedonians and Slavophone Greeks articles, since it uses data that was debunked/unacceptable in the relevant articles, plus it uses offending and controversial terminology.--   Avg    22:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete blatant POV fork. --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete POV-fork Reaper7 (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep ; anything to do with ethnic macedonians in greece seems to be POVP m kocovski (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Greek users: If you think a rename is needed, get a consensus. If it looks POV, discuss it and edit. Don't just try to delete it because it "offends" you. Articles are meant to be written in summary style anyway. Laveol: cut the crap - Bulgarians use this term too; it isn't irredentist. BalkanFever 10:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    This is not a renaming matter. It's pure POV pushing. No wonder that only Slavomacedonian editors vote "Keep".--   Avg    12:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Terms such as "Aegean Macedonians" and "Aegean Macedonia" are Slavomacedonian nationalistic terms used to refer to the region of Macedonia in Greece, in the context of a United Macedonia. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment No, "Aegean Macedonia" is used in Serbian and Bulgarian. Unless you are accusing Serbs and Bulgarians of being nationalists. And no, in the Macedonian language, "Aegean Macedonia" is used regardless of a so-called "United Macedonia context". Hard for a Greek nationalist such as yourself to understand, I know. BalkanFever 12:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Do you see me using it? What crap should I be cutting since this is what I think of the term's use in English?--Laveol T 13:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Naming, actually it is a term used Slavic peoples, and Bulgarians! and Serbs and Croats. It is not ethnic macedonian propaganda.P m kocovski (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It is irrelevant what's the term in any language except English. And if any non-English language terminology should be used for people located in Greece, then it should be Greek, so you know the drill...--   Avg    12:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
      • In other words, it's a generic South Slavic term conceived by countries (Yugoslavia and Bulgaria) that never wanted Macedonia to be part of Greece in the first place. I'm sure it doesn't have irredentist connotations for the Serbs who use it today (do they really prefer it over Грчка Македонија?), but its original intention can hardly be overlooked. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:POVFORK. NikoSilver 12:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, possibly merge. The group exists, even if by some accounts its remnants in Greece itself may be small. Not a POV fork of Macedonians (ethnic group), because it deals with a subgroup of the latter. Not a POV fork of Slavophone Greeks, because that one deals with those Slavophones who opted for a Greek national identity, therefore constituting a different group even though mutual delimitation may be fleeting. Wikipedia precedent is to allow articles on national minority groups. Naming is not prima facie an obvious problem because this is certainly their self-identifying term. Predominant usage in English can be checked and reconsidered. Merging with Slavophone Greeks is an option, possibly under a third title, if both national identifications can be treated fairly in one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    The topic is covered already in three different articles: Macedonians_(ethnic_group)#Greece, Minorities_in_Greece#Christian_Orthodox_Slavophones, Slavophone Greeks. So this is clearly a content fork. This can easily be attested by the level of data that is duplicated in this article. Now it is also a POV fork, since it uses the irredentist term "Aegean" (see Aegean Macedonia), plus it attributes population figures for Slavophone Greeks to ethnic Macedonians, plus it attributes ethnic Macedonian diaspora figures again to this very subgroup, plus it considers as "Aegean Macedonians" people that their ethnicity is either Greek (see Kostas Novakis) or disputed (see Krste Misirkov), which clearly shows that there is an agenda behind this article. Again, this is a prime candidate for deletion. --   Avg    16:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The coverage in Minorities in Greece and in Macedonians (ethnic group) is a canonical example of summary article / detail article structure; the very fact that these two summary articles need to treat the topic is a good reason to factor it out into a single detail article. The Slavophone Greeks article has the problem that, by its very title, it seems to exclude the group in question from its own scope. If it is to serve as a treatment of the whole Slavophone group, including those members who actually do identify as Macedonians (and their diaspora reflections), it badly needs its title changed. If that can be done, I'm all for merging the new Aegean Macedonians article back into it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
That wouldn't be a bad idea, at all. I'm all for it. Let's hope that our Macedonian editors will show some good faith and not dismiss sources shown in previous talk pages while trying to create a new article spiced with their own brand of POV, though... 3rdAlcove (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If you agree with this option, perhaps you could add it ("... or merge") to your vote above, to help the closing admin keep track? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork as stated above. El Greco(talk) 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The term appears to be used based on a google test. This appears to be an IDONTLIKEIT nomination ([11]), and I think that's what most of the keep and delete votes seem to be quickly stacking up to. The article is also brand new and hasn't had any time to evolve. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Please show the google test and state independent (not Slavic Macedonian) sources. Note: Sites like macedonia.org and makedonija.info that show on top of google results are NOT independent sources :-) The term is used solely in a Slavic Macedonian context and it is offensive to Greeks (and this is one of the reasons they use it). Also can't quite understand what seems to be the issue with the diff? The part where I notify Kocovski that I'm quickly putting this to AfD? Rest assured he knows more than me that this is a POV fork. How you link this to WP:IDONTLIKEIT I cannot understand. I gave specific reasons, examples and the context of this issue. A WP:POVFORK article is a legitimate reason for deletion.--   Avg    23:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I mentioned that the issue is by whom and for what reason it is used. I actually checked the links, did you? This is the core of why it is POV fork. I've never claimed this term does not exist. It exists, for a reason. --   Avg    02:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • AVG, please. The term is used solely in a Slavic Macedonian context this is wrong, as balkan fever and myself have pointed out. The term is not used by ethnic macedonians only, but as well as serbs, bulgarians, croats. Other references are by Poles, Swedes, Czechs, Bosnians, Slovenians, Occitans, Catalans, Spainards and many others (on the actual, or disambiguation page). It is clearly not a term used by only ethnic macedonians, but an alternative term used by many people including english speakers. So your nationalistic/irredentist argument is baseless. P m kocovski (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Is there a voting option for "Keep your inane comments to yourself"? 3rdAlcove (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Avg, you keep on talking about the title being offensive to Greeks. Assuming this is not some more bullshit from your side: the title can be changed. There is a discussion going on at the talk page of the article - funny how you won't contribute. If you have a problem with the fact that there is a (small) ethnic Macedonian minority in Greece, well then you can't be helped. BalkanFever 11:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    Save the weasel words and insults for yourself. This is a content fork with a POV title, POV content, using references from propaganda sites. So it is a POV fork. Simple as that. Obviously I have no intention to contribute to a POV fork.--   Avg    17:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge to a neutrally named article, one that doesn't use the term "Macedonian" in a way that is alien to the context of Greece. "Aegean Macedonians" is simply too laden with political baggage, not to mention ambiguity - if "Aegean Macedonia" is the established South Slavic term, isn't it logical to assume that "Aegean Macedonians" refers to the region's (overwhelmingly ethnic Greek) population, including the Slavophones who in their majority self-identify as (a different kind of) Macedonians? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting point. Have you ever met a greek from macedonia who identifies as an Aegean Macedonian.??P m kocovski (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I haven't met anyone who identifies as an "Aegean Macedonian", full stop. That's not the point. Who lives in "Aegean Macedonia", if not the "Aegean Macedonians"? How do you expect to maintain an article on the latter that excludes practically the entire population of the former? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Well if not, then the greeks cant be called that. This is what people are not understading, Aegean Macedonian refers to the Ethnic Macedonian people in Greek/Aegean Macedonia while Greek Macedonian refers to the Greek population of all of Macedonia. I have also added at the top of the article not to be confused with greek Macedonians, to address such concerns. P m kocovski (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
At least put your propaganda terminology in order. In this very article you claim some population figures for "Aegean Macedonians" in Australia, excluding those "Aegean Macedonians" who identify as Greeks [12]. So why don't you decide first who are the "Aegean Macedonians"?--   Avg    17:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
AVG, Peter Hill has used a source which bases estimates on a combination of things. One is the loss of population in the Florina/Kastoria/Edessa area (eg. Emigration). He refers to what you call a Slavophone Greek as a person with Macedonian Origin but a Greek Self Conciousness. He removes a large proportion of his estimate, because those people do not identify as Ethnic Macedonians. It is a bit hard to claim that he is full of propoganda!, his work is readily accepted all over the world for not being biased!. If you would like further clarification i can give you the context in which it is used. You are quick to lay allegations of POV and bias but when it comes down to the wire, are they viable?P m kocovski (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This article should not be deleted. First it has references, and second it is analogical to the article Pontic Greeks. Second, about the naming it can be Ethnic Macedonians of Greece, because it shows that is it not only about those that still live in Greek Macedonia, but also in Republic of Macedonia, Canada and so on. P.S. If you delete Aegean Macedonians than you may as well delete Pontic Greeks, for the articles are analogical. Regards. --Revizionist (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Obvious POV fork Kapnisma ? 15:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete The usual semantic travesty cheered solely by the Slavic peoples inhabiting what was once Yugoslavia. A travesty that cannot continue to be ignored. ktr (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is well sourced with academic references, Greeks have to wake up in the 21 century and recognize the Macedonian nation like the rest of the world has done. Polibiush (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - today, all scholars and academic resources, including Britannica, use the term "Aegean Macedonia". There is no propaganda in this article. The article should stay. Alekishere (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Greeks don't even recognize the Macedonian Nation, so of course they won't recognize a Macedonian sub-group. But why should their nationalistic and racist policies be dragged onto Wikipedia???? Kadeshli (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment My, the tenor of the comments from the Slavic users is increasing in shrillness with each "new" user. Why do these people feel they have to accompany their vote with a mini-rant? --Tsourkpk (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
We are not slavic users, we are MACEDONIANS!!! Accept that.--Raso mk (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I hope they keep them coming. The agenda becomes even more obvious.--   Avg    01:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep : Finally!!! someone made an Agean Macedonian article! Why should it be deleted? If it gets deleted, then the Jewish Holocaust article should get deleted because Iran doesnt recognize it, and the Armenian Genocide article should be deleted because because Turkey says it doesn't exist, both in the same way Greece says there is no Macedonian minority or exile. They all exist. Fatmanonthehorse (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is not the only instance. We're in the middle of an organised POV pushing exercise a la CAMERA. See the number of new POV articles created plus polls such as in Template_talk:Ethnic Macedonians, where socks appeared and off-wiki canvassing has taken place.--   Avg    18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Possibly a by-product of what I call "Slavomacedonian Veto Syndrome"? --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If you want to have fun have a look at the abuse I get at my talk page. They have gone crazy...--   Avg    19:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Holy crap. Time for some Arbcom fun, methinks. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article seems just fine, no POV-pushing, no FORKING, no irridentist claims... It appears that Greek users vote against the article just because they don't like it, but that's no reason to delete it, not even merge it. Slavophone Greeks gives just a brief overview of the Slavic speaking population of Aegean Macedonia, but this article is about the portion of that population that consider themselves part of another nation, particularly in this case, the Macedonian nation. Greeks have a problem with that, but Wikipedia doesn't. --iNkubusse? 12:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete POV-fork Giourkas (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as a POV fork. --157.228.x.x (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - --Тиверополник (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
note Another new user whose only contrib is the vote he casted here. Clear another case of off-wiki canvassing. --Laveol T 21:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
note - I see User:Giourkas is a trusted member of the community. I think we all know these votes were not cast on rational grounds, except for the ones by non-Greek/Bulgarian and non-Macedonian users. --iNkubusse? 22:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
So, you admit to casting your vote on "irrational grounds"? 3rdAlcove (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
That's slander, shame on you. I'm saying that Greeks vote Delete just because they don't like it (because of reasons that I wouldn't dare mention), and to make balance, I mentioned Macedonian users as well. My point is that we cannot solve this by just voting, because it is more than clear that Greeks vote delete and Macedonians keep, no matter their reason. Before you accuse any "party" for canvassing, have in mind that both parties are canvassing, obviously! And I have given my reasons above, I think they're pretty rational. The article is not violating anything. --iNkubusse? 01:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as i am aware 2 non Macedonian users have voted keep, while no non bulgarian-greek users have voted delete. P m kocovski (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Yup, and at least one non-Balkan editor voted delete. The delete votes have a pretty good reasoning at least. I mean, what kind of a reason is why delete?--Laveol T 06:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Who was that (the non balkan user)? P m kocovski (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Calling it a POV-fork when it isn't is not good reasoning, as explained by one non-Balkan editor already. BalkanFever 09:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I tried my best so far to avoid any involvement in Macedonian related issues but I can't resist commenting on this Balkan versus non Balkan users. It is high time this uninvolved balkan users mumbling seized for good. I find it higly improbable that a trully "uninvolved" non Balkan user would ever give a rat's ass for Macedonia (Greek or Macedonian or "Aegean" or whatever). This whole Macedonia or Fyrom /Greece/Bulgaria situation is so so so frustrating... so much energy spent for nothing. You may think I am naive but why do I get the feeling that the things we actually have in common (all of us) are infinately more numerous than our differences? Could somebody pause a minute and reflect on this for a change?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Very controversial. POV fork unnecessary. Meander₪ 10:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Could possibly be renamed to Ethnic Macedonians in Greece with an explanation as to who uses "Aegean Macedonians". Well documented and very common topic in the media (internationally and locally). The "POV fork" claims are not justified. If we have Slavophone Greeks, we need this article. Things are split 50/50 at the moment. --Hegumen (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
note - "Aegean Macedonians" doesn't mean "Ethnic Macedonians in Greece"; it's the name for all Macedonians originating from Aegean Macedonia. Many of them live in EU countries, RoM and overseas countries. See Marek Jankulovski as an example. --iNkubusse? 17:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep (or possibly merge) per Fut.Perf. If kept may require renaming.--Staberinde (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nominator and Laveol.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


  • Delete or merge. The article reads biased but almost certainly unintentionally so. It has been written with much enthusiasm but saddly limited knowledge to the facts; this gives the article too many (legitimate) mistakes, partisan sources and misplaced emphasis. In order to rectify so many mistakes, we would probably need to spend many tiresome weeks and, in the heat of it, the current trend for invectives will intensify: Wikipedia is not intended for correcting articles as if they were a thesis for an MA degree. Of course, since the 1940s, there are people who identify as Egeski Makedonski; but the subject is far too unexplored, therefore most contributors cannot help being POV. It has been covered through other articles. That is why I say patience dear friends. If any offence has been caused by these comments, please notify me on my talk page. Politis (talk) 17:57, 16 May 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 01:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tips for Safe Trading

Tips for Safe Trading (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

How-to page. Unsourced and made by a company. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 17:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. Doesn't belong here. Thinboy00 @765, i.e. 17:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non admin closure) Cenarium (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Goode

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

Non-notable judge; news coverage relates primarily to his failed nomination to the Ninth Circuit, in articles that were mainly about squabbles between Clinton and Bush. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep The page on Barry Goode should not be deleted for five reasons: 1) Federal judicial appeals-court nominations have become increasingly controversial, and Goode is relevant because his name continually has been raised in speeches all throughout this decade by U.S. Sens. Pat Leahy and Dianne Feinstein as one of 17 non-acted-on nominations in the latter part of Clinton's presidency. 2) given his still-young age, it's reasonable to think that Goode may well be renominated to a Ninth Circuit by a Democratic president; 3) In the case of Goode, given that Helene White now has been nominated by Bush to an appeals-court slot (during Clinton's presidecy, she had gone four years without her nomination being acted upon), Goode will end up being one of the single longest un-acted-upon judicial nominations in U.S. history. That alone (a 998-day nomination period) qualifies Goode for being notable. 4) As the page currently shows, Goode was very active in Gray Davis' final years as California governor, being involved in the Duke Energy flap and also in the governor's dealings with Oracle. 5) Finally, Goode had a distinguished and newsworthy career as an environmental lawyer. Jarvishunt (talk) 11 May 2008
I would like, if I may, to address the preceding five points. On point one, I would direct your attention to the sections of WP:BIO and WP:BLP that I quote in my main comment below. The event is notable, but the person is not. On point two, WP:CRYSTAL states that Wikipedia is not a place for speculative information; if he becomes notable later, then the article can be recreated. As for point three, even if he were the longest un-acted-upon nomination in history, that does not make him notable. In fact, I don't think that event is notable in itself and warrants little more than a passing mention in more general articles about other, related topics. On point five, I would say that if his career as a lawyer was newsworthy, produce the sources to back it up and remember that being mentioned in an article about something is not the same as being the subject of that article which is required for meeting notability standards. I deliberately skipped point four to save it until last as it is the best of the points raised. I will grant that his involvement with the aforementioned scandals nearly invalidates my claim that he is notable for a single event, but I still don't see this as being sufficient to meet the notability guidelines. Simply being associated with a notable occurrance does not make you notable. I can see where you are coming from, but I must disagree on this matter. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 17:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There is some referenced notability in the article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. To quote from WP:BLP, "[i]f reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." This person is only, as far as I could tell, covered in reliable sources in the context of a single event, specifically his nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. WP:BIO goes on to state that, "[w]hen a person is associated with only one event, such as[...]standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." That appears to be the case here. As WP:BLP says "[c]over the event, not the person." (boldface in original) OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 17:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. GoogleNews gives 110 hits for him[13], after filtering, including fairly substantial coverage from his work for the Davis administration. Not a BLP1E case. Nsk92 (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. When the "one event" you're known for (assuming that's true) is a major political tussle in the upper house of a national legislature, your notability is not really in question. WP:ONEEVENT was intended for people who get 15 minutes of fame for balancing a hot dog on their nose and the like. What an atrocious misapplication of policy. --Dhartung | Talk 20:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep at this rate , the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination will be next for AfD. Oneevent, after all. If that policy is going to be misinterpreted this way, its time to have the wording changed. It means just what Dhartung says it does, and it would never have become consensus if people had thought it meant anything more than that. The alternative would be to remove that part of BLP altogether, and I would hate for that to happen, because it is in fact needed to prevent unfair treatment. DGG (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Withdraw nomination - I figure it's good for one's mental health to admit when one is wrong. I know this could be a "non-admin" closure, but I don't know how to do that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm prepared to concur with that, despite my above statements. I may have been way off base on this one. The consensus is clear and I respect it. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 16:11, 13 May 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. An overwhelming consensus for deletion. In addition there are no secondary sources to stand up the various claims in the article that consequently fail WP:V. TerriersFan (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pineapple guru

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

Either not notable due to a lack of coverage by reliable secondary sources or a hoax, no web results and the link to a myspace page is dead. Guest9999 (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Given that the article lists them as being created in April of 2008, I wouldn't be surprised if they're merely non-notable, but that's enough for a delete !vote. Rnb (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the 2008 date is an error. It should say 2007. Thats my fault, I'll change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illbeyourman (talk • contribs) 16:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete a google search for "pineapple guru" band comes up with nothing of note and with no possible outside sources the article fails WP:BAND - Dumelow (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Absolutely no reliable sources to show notability per WP:BAND. Nsk92 (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable band with zero coverage in reliable, independent sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Band hasn't finished recording an album yet, no claim of notability other than a local kerfluffle about lyrics.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • According to sources at shows, the band is nearing completion of their album. It should be released this July. The "local kerfluffle" about lyrics was more than just a "kerfuffle", if thats even a word. It was an uproar that nearly killed the bands career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotherump (talk • contribs) 22:54, 13 May 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. Davewild (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pedro Rodriguez Medina

Pedro Rodriguez Medina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not encyclopedic NPOV essay  Andreas  (T) 16:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, clearly not written from a NPOV and is heavily biased. It is unlikely that much of worth can be salvaged from the article in the present state and it is probably better to delete it. If suitable (and neutral) sources can be found for the subject then by all means we can have an article but it will require a complete rewrite anyway. The only sources I can see at present are in Spanish so perhaps someone fluent in that language or with an interest in Cuban history can determine notability for sure but it seems unlikely that a notable person would not receive a single mention in English - Dumelow (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per discussion at WP:PNT#Pedro Rodriguez Medina. nneonneo talk 19:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. -Yupik (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - the article is about a radio news reporter in Florida, who may or may not be part of groups that seek to overthrow the Castro regime in Cuba. There is so much personally insulting content that I question the article's neutrality. It has overtones of being an attack page. The original Spanish is badly written and highly convoluted, which made the machine translatoin a mess. Cbdorsett (talk) 08:00, 13 May 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 01:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Add my work

Add my work (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems like an inherently POV opinion piece someone's homework on a topic which is likely covered in some form or another in the many other articles we have on, magistrates, judges, courts and the legal system. Guest9999 (talk) 16:22, 11 May 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) The consensus below is that MV Island Sky is a notable ship. Darkspots (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MV Island Sky

MV Island Sky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I really have no idea about this: are ferries notable automatically or not? The number of articles we have on them seems to suggest they are, but just what evidence is given here that this ferry - not even built yet - could be considered notable? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, if it's not yet built then is it a violation of our policy regarding balls? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I think we're OK as far as WP:CRYSTAL goes as it is apparently already under construction and physically exists but I do not feel that this ferry has any notability, particularly as its predecessor on the same route does not - Dumelow (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment, many of the sources for MV Island Sky on the net are for a cruise ship and not for this ferry - Dumelow (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete unless rewritten from secondary sources. My thinking on ferries is that they are potentially inherently notable as they essentially serve the same purpose as a highway. In many cases they are the only access to someplace. In almost all cases they constitute a major government or public-private enterprise. So there are strong reasons to think of ferries as notable.--Dhartung | Talk 17:42, 11 May 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 —Alex.Muller 12:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Authority site

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

Can't see how this could be anything more than a WP:DICDEF. ZimZalaBim talk 15:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. This is clearly material for a dictionary. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - a google search seems to show a fair amount of discussion, I suspect an article could be made, but it doesn't look like anyone is making one and it is currently looking like a DICTDEF. If someone put some work into it, I could easily see changing my mind. Wrs1864 (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree that there could be a nice article for this, but until someone creates it, this is just a waste. --AnnaFrance (talk) 19:42, 16 May 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 ( ¡? ) 08:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yoann Henri Le Teuff

Yoann Henri Le Teuff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, and thus non-notable. His teaching at Matthew Boulton comes from a personal page of his, while his CV here indicates no research after the awarding of the PhD. The rm of speedy claimed hits on Google Scholar - there were none. "Y.H. Le Teuff" gets more hits but the majority of them are not for the PhD work as claimed, but rather a database for which he was not the sole contributor. Therefore, I do not see credible support for the statements in the article that would establish scientific notability. MSJapan (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A relatively recent PhD (2000) with only a few publications, per his CV. GoogleSearch does show one highly cited paper (97 citations), joint with two other people but after that citations quickly drop to 13 and then to a few single digits[14]. Not enough here to satisfy WP:PROF yet. May become notable soon but not at the moment. Nsk92 (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • weak delete the highest number of hits for an actual research article according to NASA ADS, is 27. However, judging from the full CV at [15], might possibly be notable as a secondary school teacher--the subjects 2nd career. .DGG (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • delete per DGG & NsK92, does not meet the criteria of WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree, where as he may of been the sole contributer in the UMIST database, his phd did regardless feature in journals of science and researches have used his work on Wolf Rayet stars to advancement of knowledge, his notability is proven there fore it does not warrent a delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.146.87 (talk) 20:39, 14 May 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.  Sandstein  19:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jects

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

Contested PROD. Individual of questionable notability. Of the 19 google hits returned some of those are even repeats of each other. Also nominating his two albums:

  • Escape From Prison
  • Into The Darkness

--Roleplayer (talk) 15:24, 11 May 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. When this AFD started, the only source that would have "confirmed" this was a picture that might have been from Corocoro. However, since then, Nintendo Japan has officially announced this, giving us a reliable source. The Placebo Effect (talk) How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review. 16:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pokémon Platinum

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

Nothing on the page complies with WP:BALL. Nothing official has been released (to the best of my knowledge and google searching).
EDIT: Not even confirmed by the developer! asenine say what? 15:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I can find, it seems not. asenine say what? 17:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Pokemon Platinum has been confirmed in a CoroCoro scan. CoroCoro is a Japanese publication that often announces the release of new games. It seems to be a legit form of proof on the new game. Roo2010 (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
CoroCoro is not Nintendo. Unless Nintendo itself confirms this, this is crystal-ballism, which is explicitly disallowed. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 04:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Believe me, KoroKoro is Nintendo. The magazine has been a promotional vehicle for Nintendo for a long time, and has always been the first to announce new Pokemon games. If the KoroKoro talks serious about a new Pokemon game, there is almost certainly something going on. Not enough to write an article about, but worth a mention at Pokémon video game series at this time. Cheers, Face 11:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Merge w/ Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. Wikipedia is not a rumor mill, and that's all this article is. The fact that the only source it had is a fansite (which fails WP:RS makes this look more and more like the Titanic. A merge at this point would be best, largely due to the only links for info being fansites (and, despite what A. Exeunt says, WP:POKE has had issues with Serebii sourcing because they appear to not have any editorial oversight; these issues caused the species megamerger). -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 04:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - the list at the bottom makes it look like there might be enough info to build an article, but it needs sourcing. I'd be happy to change my vote if adequate sourcing is provided, and I suspect most would be. McJeff (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
As it is, the series' developer hasn't announced anything yet, and the only information available is from a fansite. I wouldn't be surprised if same list was on that fansite. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 06:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
In that case, vote amended. McJeff (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, for now - Merge - But we'll be one of the first to revive it if sufficient official information becomes available. - Face 11:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe I voted Delete. Some information should be put in Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, so that's a Merge of course. Now that I look at the article's talk however, I see there has already been a war about this... I still stand behind my redirect proposal btw: Pokemon Platinum redirect to Pokémon Platinum, Pokémon Platinum redirect to Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. Cheers, Face 19:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
That would be a double redirect though. What should really be done is have both Pokemon Platinum and Pokémon Platinum redirect to Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, then when the article is split, redirect Pokemon Platinum to Pokémon Platinum.-Jeff (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even reliable self-published sources like Serebii.net seem to make no mention of it. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 11:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Serebii.net does mention it (and was one of the first who did). In fact, it just published a second high resolution scan of the KoroKoro page, which confirms the Autumn 2008 release. I must say I look forward to further developments. - Face 12:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Pokémon Platinum, with accented e, is currently a redirect to Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. I inserted the content of Pokemon Platinum in this page, and then changed it back to a redirect. That way, anyone can revive the article easily, and I think that redirect should not be deleted because of that reason. In fact, I think Pokemon Platinum should actually be a redirect to Pokémon Platinum. Cheers, Face 13:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Keep it for now. When it's denied by Nintendo we delete ;) CoroCoro never gets things wrong. I know it's not official but what the hell, people, use your minds. LuGiADude (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep CoroCoro is a reliable source. TheLeftorium (talk) 16.27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep If you can't trust CoroCoro for information on this kind of thing by now, then there's something awry. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 00:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Corocoro is a reliable source, and i say we keep the article until more information is avaliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metagraph (talk • contribs) 07:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: The existance of the game is supported by neutral, third party sources. Likely, the information in this article will expand once more information concerning the production of this game will come forth.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Pokemon Diamond and Pearl Sceptre (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Lots of other games have been articled months before their release (Super Smash Bros. Brawl, par example), and this is definitely going to be a popular release, so why not create a separate article, featuring differences and general material. Corocoro is a reliable source for new gaming information, and besides, it's not like we can't edit it once new information is released. I believe Pokemon Yellow, Crystal and Emerald had the same treatment, so why not the 4th Generation version? 12:11, 14 Mat 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.167.51 (talk)
  • Keep Certainly would be notable later.  Marlith (Talk)  23:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Pokémon video game series. This doesn't have much information in the article now, but when it does, I'd love to see it at its own article, expended. I am not saying that stub is a bad idea, I'm just saying it's even better idea to let the stub be in another article until it's no longer a stub. Look at articles like Transformers 2 for example, that's also announced, but there is no article at all, it's located in the movie article. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep CoroCoro is definitely a reliable source, and this article will take off to be highly notable as soon as more information is released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twipie (talk • contribs) 02:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge. I don't dispute its existence, but at this point in its life, it needs not an article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per this. NeonFire (talk) 12:14, 15 May 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rusty Ryan

NOTE: Also included in this AFD is Linus Caldwell.
Rusty Ryan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
Linus Caldwell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

NN character per WP:FICT, no real world references Dismas|(talk) 00:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable outside of the re-makes. article doesn't even mention the original movie. Misleading. Possibly merge with the Ocean articles, but that probably isn't necessary. 65.11.23.219 (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, valid characters in notable movie. Stifle (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • What does "valid" mean in this context? Putting that aside for now, would you say that all characters from every notable film deserves an article? Should we have a stub for the piano player in Casablanca? Or the girlfriends from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? Dismas|(talk) 21:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Both are major characters over several parts of the series--therefore a separate article is appropriate. But I think the LC article is of rather poor quality, and does need quite a bit of trimming & rewriting to make it understandable to those who dont know the series. There are probably enough secondary sources to be found in the various reviews to accommodate those who think such sources necessary. Incidentally, WP:FICT is not a guideline. It's a proposed guideline, and was almost marked as rejected a little earlier today. there is no point quoting it as if it indicated consensus. DGG (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete DGG correctly notes the disputed aspect of WP:FICT, but fails to acknowledge that there remains widespread agreement in the ongoing discussion that rejects purely {{in-universe}} content as a basis for individual articles, a derivation of WP:NOT#PLOT. To wit: these articles. Eusebeus (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
there's unfortunately little consensus on anything in this proposed guideline, By looking back over the incredible length archives, one can find support in the discussion for anything. It is probably a compromise position to say that any amount of real-world content is sufficient--and there should always be able to be some, because one can & should always find who played it and where in the series the role occurred. This eliminates the actual "real-world" problem, which was the many articles present here a year ago which gave no indication whether or not the people were actually from a fiction in the first place. there's just a little here, and more is needed. Agreed its a low-quality article. sofixit. DGG (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, FICT isn't even a guideline. And I'm guessing there are hundreds of sources that have written about this character. The nominator can start by looking at these 515 sources.[16][17][18] --Pixelface (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep all as recognizable characters played by big name actors in blockbuster series. Moreover, it says at the top of WP:FICT page: "references or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Please point out where anyone refers to WP:FICT as 'policy'. Dismas|(talk) 19:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete both and create redirects. Articles consist only of plot summaries of the remakes. The films are notable but that doesn't imply that each individual character is as well. It is exactly like episodes an Tv series. The notability of the Tv series is not transferes to each episode. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If there are redirect locations and the articles are not hoaxes, libel, or copy vios, then we do not delete the articles as well as it is important to maintain user public contribution histories and to make it easier to improve redirected articles whenever new sources come along. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
the guideline at fiction gets more and more dubious each day. In any case, the actual guideline in practice reflects what we do in Wikipedia, and this is the place to decide. We are bound rigidly by guidelines even when they do exist, we can interpret them according to reasonableness. And when the guideline is totally disputed not just in detailed wording but in its very existence, asserting t here is a totally bald assertion. Important characters in fiction are appropriate for articles. Les important ones in important fictions are appropriate for merge. nether are appropriate for deletion.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.  Sandstein  19:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Lyndon

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

Attack page (speedy nomination reverted) citing a source that doesn't even mention the person (removed twice, see history); notability. -- Jeandré, 2008-05-11t14:20z

  • Delete. Was an attack article meant to disparage the subject, now a stub, either way fails notability requirements for an article. KleenupKrew (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable in its current state. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. The article was created as an attack page which is certainly unacceptable. Currently the article is a stab with little useful info. However, the subject actually does appear notable. A GoogleNews search gives 137 hits[19], and it is clear (by doing further google searching) that he has been the subject of considerable controversy in the UK. If some-one took the time to expand the article in a neutral and balanced way, it could be kept. In its present state the article is of not much use. Given the BLP considerations involved and the history of the article being used for attack purposes, it is probably better to delete the article for now, unless someone puts forward a reasonable and more detailed draft. Nsk92 (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Meets none of the criteria for journalists at WP:BIO#Creative professionals. —97198 talk 14:05, 15 May 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 01:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lufthansa operated by United Airlines

Lufthansa operated by United Airlines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article about a codeshare agreement. It is not a separate entity from the two airlines. Airlines codeshare with other airlines all the time, and such an agreement does not merit its own page Neo16287 (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, and move any relevant information into the Lufthansa and United Airlines articles. This agreement between the two airlines is not notable enough to warrant its own article. KleenupKrew (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge Per nomination, this agreement in itself is not notable. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A codeshare is nothing new. As the OP stated, they happen all the time between airlines.RSW-red sox win (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete There are vast numbers of codeshares in the world. They aren't remotely notable. A word or two in the destinations sections of relevant articles (codeshare with XYZ) is all that's required. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete One of many thousand non-notable codeshares. MilborneOne (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete We don't need an article about every codeshare agreement. — Wenli (reply here) 01:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge any useful information that can be salvaged. -Yupik (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge per nom. to remove non-notable article and preserve any information. --AnnaFrance (talk) 17:56, 13 May 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, no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Special Dave

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

Appears to be a hoax, I can't find anything on MC MC or Special Dave or the show "Lord Blige Commands" Not speedied in case I'm just not seeing something. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Levity Heaven

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

The article is an autobiography and the author had conflict of interest. She was attempting to gain notability through this encyclopedia. A search for her at Google (excluding Wikipedia and mirrors) received 266 hits. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:39, 11 May 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. Since the nomination and the one delete comment were predicated on the lack of sources, now that multiple sources have been provided I have given greater weight to the keep views. TerriersFan (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miniconomy

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

No references (WP:V), does not pass notability guidelines (WP:N (Google shows lots of directory entries; can't see any reliable coverage.) Largely game-guide material (WP:NOT#GUIDE) without any out-of-universe context (WP:WAF). Basically no improvement from the previous two deletions (one expired prod, one speedy). Marasmusine (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Madman (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - From personal experience I can tell you all this game has received a lot of academic coverage in the Netherlands as an educational tool. Let me see if I can find anything on the web, but you'll have to take my word for it for now. Otherwise I'll have to go to the educational research faculty of my uni and see if they have anything. User:Krator (t c) 11:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, there's a lot.
  • Inholland centre for E-learning report has a chapter on it. [20] In Holland is the Netherlands' largest provider of education at Hogeschool level.
  • A wiki entry on an educational wiki. Though an open wiki, it is run by Kennisnet, which among other things hosts Wikipedia servers in the Netherlands.
  • The game won a webaward in 2004.
  • another report
  • Basically most of this establishes its notability in this context. The search term is Dutch for 'education'.
  • Further add on and then there's two sources on the article itself, [21] and [22], both of which are reliable, nontrivial and third-party. User:Krator (t c) 12:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • As I wrote the above, the article's creator added more sources, all of which are reliable, and the first and third are nontrivial: [23]. The third source is from the NRC Handelsblad, the Dutch "Wall Street Journal" to use an analogy. Marasmusine, withdrawal? User:Krator (t c) 12:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Krator, I'll trust you on the reliablilty of those sources. My judgement is a bit off at the moment (having been awake for 30 hours plus now, don't ask) but if the next person along is happy with those links too then that's fine by me. Marasmusine (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Enough coverage in reliable sources has been found to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 12:32, 17 May 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. Although the comments calling for a speedy keep are out of place--the nomination was clearly made in good faith--the arguments raised in favor of keeping the article are persuasive. WP:WEB is a guideline for the application of WP:N, which defines notability as having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". From looking through the discussion below as well as the external links provided, it seems that there is a consensus to keep based on sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources (see, for example, [24] and [25]). While it is clear to me that the article could use some cleanup in order to more clearly present its claims to notability, this should be handled through normal editing means. --jonny-mt 04:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hattrick

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Hattrick Articles for deletion/Hattrick (2nd nomination)
Hattrick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has no sources independent of the site itself that prove its notability. It has no assertion of its notability from independent sources. Smartyllama (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Smartyllama (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - how times change; previously speedily kept on the grounds of "lots of people play it." If that was something special, then someone, somewhere in the gaming media, would have given it some critical attention. Examining the references, some links no longer work, some are unreliable (an open wiki), none are independent (thus failing WP:N guidelines.) I'm prepared to change my opinion if someone can link to third-party coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Not having independent sources isn't grounds for an AfD, its grounds for adding a template seeking some. This passed its previous AfD not because "lots of people play it", but because "due to an Alexa rank just outside the top thousand, 800,000 registered users, millions of Google hits, thousands of inbound links, multiple related forums and fansites and several dozen third-party add-ins" it easily passed WP:WEB. Nothing's changed since, except another 150,000 users. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It fails, rather.
  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. (Failed)
    • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following: (No reliable published works found)
      • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. (Probably the article itself)
      • Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.
  2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. (No award was ever given)
  3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for:
    • Trivial distribution such as hosting content on entertainment-like sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.) (None so far)

Also:

Could you explain what that means? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:ADVERT Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Response. You're not reading the content, either of the article or this debate.

1. It's been used and cited in several acadmic studies. One of these is now referenced. 2. I've found several non-trivial references by Googling +"Hattrick" +"ExtraLives". As mentioned elsewhere on this page, their non-inclusion thus far is not grounds for deletion. 3. Wrong. Read the page. You "doubt the Philippine membership on this site"? Eh? How is that in any way relevant to an AfD. If you bother to check (takes two minutes), you'll find that 275 of the 965,000 active players are Filipino. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

But how were they able to get those figures? Is the source itself reliable? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Again (assuming you're asking about the number of Filipino users), this is totally irrelevant to an AfD. But as it happens, yes, the number will be accurate. Each application for an account must be reviewed by a GM before the account is activated. Each application is tied to the country in which the applicant resides, by IP address. But then, this all explained in the article. The article which now has multiple reliable sources and references including academic studies. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Response to Bastun The "it has x google hits, so its a keep" violates WP:BIG. Smartyllama (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough - that still leaves an Alexa rank just outside the top thousand, 966,000 registered users, thousands of inbound links, multiple related forums and fansites and several dozen third-party add-ins - which satisfy WP:WEB. I've since added some more to the article, including awards, Hattrick's involvement in charity, and its use in academia. (Still wondering what "and I doubt the Philippine membership on this community" is about...) BastunBaStun not BaTsun 20:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Are some Filipinos members of that site? Also, what are those lots of links for? Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 06:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Not that its in any way relevant to an AfD, but yes. What are what links? If you mean the references I added, click them and find out. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep There are many sources available for this. If the nominator wants some in the article then he should fix it himself. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • A quick glance at the "many sources" reveals that few of them are about the site, and most are about guys in soccer getting hat tricks. Smartyllama (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
      • And so we use the sources that refer to this game site rather than the ones which are unrelated. I skimmed through them and counted at least four references to reliable sources to satisfy myself on this point. We only require two to establish notability and so your point is otiose. Colonel Warden (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It doesn't just need two sources mentioning it, it needs two sources asserting its notability. If this were not the case, we'd have several million people with articles who had two mentions in local newspapers. :-) Could you please explain how said sources assert notability. Smartyllama (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep The game is played by almost a million people. This alone should merit it an article. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 06:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
But it's another WP:BIG violation! Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 08:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Correction The number of players is irrelevant to a game's notability. See WP:N. Randomran (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
      • No, WP:N states that this guideline is to be interpreted using commonsense. It is obvious commonsense that a game with about a million players is worthy of notice. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Common sense should dictate the use of policies. And to me common sense would dictate that million users alone should be notable. There are many countries with less population than Hattrick has active users. Are there any precedents that a MMOG with active users counted in several hundreds of thousands is non-notable? --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 11:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As per nominator. If someone can show reliable third party sources talking about this game, then I'll gladly withdraw. Otherwise, this patent violation of WP:N. Randomran (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Net Success Interviews (E Loughnane) (Lulu.com, 2005) 624 pages, ISBN 1411626982
http://www.fcha.dk/viewpage.php?page_id=1
http://www.fchattrick.dk/viewpage.php?page_id=2
Multiplayer Online Games Directory - Game of the Month: Available: http://www.mpogd.com/gotm/?Date=10/1/2002
New Business in Computer-mediated Communities. (Helsinki, 2004) (Patrik Ajalin, Tomas Granö, and Kaj Nyberg) Available: http://www.cs.hut.fi/~rsarvas/Sarvas_etal_NewBusiness.pdf Accessed: 11th May 2008.
Title: Time Extraction from Real-time Generated Football Reports (Borg, Markus) Description: Proceedings of the 16th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics NODALIDA-2007. Editors: Joakim Nivre, Heiki-Jaan Kaalep, Kadri Muischnek and Mare Koit. University of Tartu, Tartu, 2007. ISBN 978-9985-4-0513-0 (online) ISBN 978-9985-4-0514-7 (CD-ROM) pp. 37-43. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/10062/2516 Accessed: 13th May 2008.
http://www.homelessworldcup.org/ and http://www.justgiving.com/hattrick
Should be enough to start with... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The key is reliable sources. Are those sources really reliable? They look like community websites to me. We need references from journalists at reputable game sites or news sites. Randomran (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
They do? One is a fairly weighty 624 page book - not a website. Two are (real world) football teams. One is an online games site (which, in fairness, is where you're most likely to find news on awards for online games!). Two are academic papers published by universities. Two are international charities. No community websites there, with the possible exception of the online games site. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable game, independently of how many people play it. No reviews or articles on any major videogame site (like gamespot). Actually, no articles on any videogame review site. Only reviews I could find are hosted at self-publishing sites [26]1 link removed for spam filter. This indicates a game that has almost zero encyclopaedic value, compare its notability with games like Habbo Hotel and Eve Online that really made a difference and get reviewed on many places. Even Trickster Online gets some coverage in english language [27], but this game doesn't. That's not good. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This "article" is in the "Blogs" section. It still asserts *some* notability Nah, looking better, it seems that the section is just a collection of blogs made by people working there, this is not actual coverage of the game [28] --Enric Naval (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:GOOGLEHITS gives a huge amount of false positives with "Hat Trick" and people with surname Hattrick so it's not a reliable statistic. No reliable source for active users, as opossed to simply counting registered accounts, including the ones never used. Alexa is irrelevant and can be gamed by asking users to install Alexa toolbar on their computer. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Well. The number of active users (at least according to Hattrick) is the number of users that have logged in within the last seven weeks. As for the number of accounts that have ever been registered, sniffing through the id numbers it seems that there are at least 7.7 million users who have been registered users. As for WP:GOOGLEHITS searching for "hattrick.org" gives over 3 million hits, and I guess not many of them are false positives. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 10:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply Or, indeed, search for +"Hattrick" +"ExtraLives". Its really not difficult to remove false positives. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - the basis for this AfD is plain wrong. There exists multiple independent coverage for this: A book and multiple academic papers - what more could we ask? -- Mark Chovain 06:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Cautious keep The sources need very careful evaluation (the first I checked was on lulu.com, which is a self-publishing site). I suggest it is given a period of intense evaluation and rework, and once the sources have been checked and the text beaten into shape a bit, we look again. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Minor characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (comic series); I have redirected the article. Knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant, cited information. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Julie-Su

Julie-Su (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page concerns a fictional character that is not notable, because it has not received any nontrivial coverage. In other words, there are no reliable sources that have this character as their primary subject. This nomination is not a blanket nomination on purpose. User:Krator (t c) 12:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep: If the article doesn't have sources then find some.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have just multiplied the single ref, which features a scan of an official profile from the comic that features her.Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I am arguing that there are no reliable sources covering this subject. I did search and found none. Note that the sources currently on there are not reliable and do not provide for any notability. User:Krator (t c) 13:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. Take a look at the single ref's entire page and you'll see a scan of her official profile.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, so if I found that picture on it's own that would count as an independent source?Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well it isn't actually a picture, it's a scan of the official profile featured in the comic.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And the Sonic Task Force, which I am the leader of, intend to help clean up this article.Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Anything coming from Archie or Sega directly like that would be a primary source. Please see WP:RS for a list of what is considered a reliable source. No amount of cleanup will fix the fact that no third-party sources (i.e. someone not directly related to Archie or Sega) has ever written about her as far as I can tell. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If I used actual conversations used by the characters as refs, would they count as third-party as they're from an in-universe perspective?Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No. Independent, third-party means you'll need a source that is not anything published by Sega or Archie. I claim in my nomination that such sources do not exist for this character. User:Krator (t c) 15:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've gotten a reliable prime source and a third-party independent ref, I've fixed most of the things that caused the AfD. Haven't I?Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete - Either way, this doesn't have the the information to back up a claim of notability, so it doesn't require an article. TTN (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • TTN, you're only allowed to comment on an AfD and are forbidden from requesting a merge.Fairfieldfencer FFF 15:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Uh, that's not what they meant. This is completely fine. TTN (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It said you were allowed to comment on an Afd and are prohibited from making a redirect merge or deletion, and are not allowed to request them either.Fairfieldfencer FFF 16:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That meant on an article, not on a talk page. TTN (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You're interpreting this too literally. It's fine. Just leave it at that. TTN (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Remember the time were most Sonic articles were merged into one, and the one shot characters were deleted. That was him.Fairfieldfencer FFF 16:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • TTN is allowed to comment here, the restriction explicitly mentions he is free to comment on any AFD. The 'request' part does not deal with AFDs but with pages such as WP:PM. User:Krator (t c) 16:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that is what his restrictions specifically said. Read over the facts, next time, kid. Oh, and while I'm here, Keep to find sources, and if nothing sufficient can be found, MERGE. (Goes back on Wikibreak) -ZeroGiga (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I added a new ref using discussions and intend to do the same thing to help the article, so does that mean your vote is keep? Oh and could you stop calling me kid please, it's really annoying.Fairfieldfencer FFF 14:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge - She's really a barely notable character, and long winded. Nothing would be harmed by reducing it to the essentials.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Knuckles's girlfriend isn't notable?!? With the Chaotix currently residing in New Mobotropolis, she's been appearing more and more often. --Luigifan (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge the most important info into the LoC. I do not doubt the accuracy of the article, but I am worried about the WP:UNDUE weight of WP:INUNIVERSE info about a non-WP:NOTABLE character, which per Krator seems unfixable. – sgeureka t•c 16:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge per all Thinboy00 @779, i.e. 17:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd say keep as it's worth considering that if you don't keep this one, you might as well delete every page that is related to the characters created by Archie, as none have any reliable sources. It's a comic, you can't expect reliable sources if 'pictures aren't sources'. Pictures are what comics are all about. Maybe Spiderman or Batman can have reliable sources, but only because of all the different media they're in. If it were different, and neither Spiderman nor Batman were anything more than comic book characters, it'd be the same situation with them because the only official sources were pictures. Also, since the only official way of knowing, for example, that Locke died, was in a picture, a non-source, we might as well call it false info, eh? When you look at it that way, calling pictures invalid as sources starts to seem contradictory to the point of having articles on comics and their characters, doesn't it? After all, you're not really going to find official info on a comic character other than in a picture, are you? Right, I'll end this long post, if that's what it's called here, before I start rambling. Just wanted to point out that they are comics after all. It's obviously going to be hard finding reliable 'real sources' if you don't accept pictures.--FTEPoSI (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Therein lies the problem... Bridies (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I quote: "you might as well delete every page that is related to the characters created by Archie, as none have any reliable sources". That seems like a good plan. However, rashness and blanket nominations have let to idiocy in the past, so let's consider this article alone for now. User:Krator (t c) 19:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting doing it. I was pointing out that your grounds for nominating this article for deletion could be applied to all the other articles for Archie-created characters, as they all share the same sources, and therefore the same problem. Although, I guess it did seem a little ambiguous.--FTEPoSI (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I am suggesting doing it, and I agree that my grounds for nominating this article for deletion should be applied to all the other articles that fit the same profile. I just think it should be a slow process, not a blanket nomination of 200 articles, as there may be some exceptions we fail to see. User:Krator (t c) 20:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Okay, I was asked by a fellow user to take a look at this AFD and leave my comments, and my opinion is neutral, pending opinion conditional. Anyway, most of this article appears to be a mass violation of WP:PLOT, similar to Super transformation (other media) (which is being kept for the moment solely for the purpose of deciding what to do with it due to mergers into Chaos Emeralds.) It is discussed primarily in-universe and doesn't have too many sources. Now, that being said, there's no reason why this article couldn't be cleaned up, pending the location of reliable sources. And just because they're not there now doesn't mean they don't exist at all. In my experience, most reliable sources for fictional characters are buried in a pile of fancruft among all the sites in the internet. This usually means it takes time to fix. As for the merge suggestion, I would recommend it provided that a decent article can be made from this info along with other info. There isn't a list of these characters, is there? I believe Krator's suggestion of deleting every Archie character is a bit beyond what we should be focusing on, but at least he is right in not doing a blanket nomination, and I do agree with him there. If someone volunteers to work extensively on this article (or does so), I will say Keep. If not, I would merge any current useful info provided that some place for the info is available or can be created. If not this, then delete. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 22:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I suppose FairfieldFencer and I could try, but as you said, the useful info is likely buried under piles of fancruft. Still, I find that it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia - to have information available on everything - to delete articles just because no "notable" information can be found. To resurrect an earlier point, you wouldn't dare delete the article on Gwen Stacy, would you?!? She's about as "notable" as Julie-Su at this point. Ironically, this article itself is probably the best place to find reliable information on Julie-Su. --Luigifan (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm willing to help out the article. If I can get E-123 Omega to B-class I could help this article out as well. So I believe RP's vote would be keep.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep since it seems it is important, though it is hard to tell through the excessively dense writing. These articles need rewriting and cleanup, almost all of them. If the effort towards deletion and defense had gone to that, we'd be much further along. DGG (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The argument is that it is impossible to clean them up because there are no third party sources available. If you think the articke is important and can be cleaned up, please demonstrate how.Bridies (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge into Sonic Characters. Need Reliable Third Party sources, not a single source from its own creation LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I suspect there ould be third party magazines or books about comics not produced by teh compamnies involved if someone were to go to a comic book or specialty shop. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge with other Sonic characters. Not enough real world information to have its one article. Plus: The character is a minor one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 09:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment May I point out that it is a comic book? Of course if pictures don't count as sources and all other sources, you say, are 'unreliable', then clearly, there won't be any 'exceptions' unless you mean the ones who've appeared in the games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FTEPoSI (talk • contribs) 10:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey there, I think you may be a bit confused after all the above conversations, because this comment doesn't make much sense. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask them on my talk page. User:Krator (t c) 10:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I just noticed a comment being added and removed, so perhaps some qualification. The fact that the sources are pictures has nothing to do with their use to establish notability. The only thing that matters for that is their being "reliable, independent, third-party". As they are not independent or third-party, they cannot be used to establish notability. Again, not because they are pictures. They can, too, be used as references only in the article itself when notability is established by other sources per WP:SELFPUB. User:Krator (t c) 11:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge per above - there's no real-world coverage or other assertions of notability, so the topic doesn't deserve its own article. If merged, it needs editing down heavily per WP:WAF, as there's no real-world information to balance the in-universe information. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable fictional character with real-world interest. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or fail that merge and redirect. No real-world content or assertion of significance. Eusebeus (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: The character is popular even among people who dislike the Archie series. --Luigifan (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, no sign of independent coverage. Notability requires independent publications, which I just don't see. It's possible they could exist, but faith isn't a substitute for proof. Graevemoore (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • delete - after all this discussion above, not one keep-voter has added even one external third-party reliable source to the article, or even mentioned it above? Do we all get to ignore WP:RS now? Did WP:CRUFT get deleted in the last month? Has someone been editing WP:NOT behind our backs? I would love to see one independent third-party source, some sort of book on the topic, that says at least something about Julie-Su. Then you can bootstrap in all the in-universe info you want. But I'd first like to see some third-party assertion of this character's notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:CRUFT is just an essay and that word is not helpful. Also, the article gets thousands of hits a month. One thing that's important is that we don't just rule out the possibility of sources existing if there's difficulty finding them online. Many reliable magazines do not have full online articles. There are a number of times that I have added references from video game and other magazines to articles on Wikipedia that would not be found on a simple Google search, but that do in effect demonstrate sufficient out of universe coverage. A key is Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state and what I see above is members of the relevant wiki project actively searching for sources and given that we do indeed know the character is not a hoax and is somewhat of a main character in its franchise, then it's not unreasonable to believe that some magazine without an online archive would have adequate sources to improve the article. And I see no reason why on something with a deadline anyone should be pressured to produce such sources for a non-hoax article with enough Google hits to suggest at least popularity during a five-day AfD. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as it fails to satisfy WP:PLOT, WP:V, and WP:N. At a stretch, trim down to a sourced paragraph or two and merge. Jakew (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like to say that there are currently 8 keeps, 8 deletes and 7 merges.Fairfieldfencer FFF 18:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • And zero coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Graevemoore (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
How exactly are you defineing reliable in this case?Geni 20:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd taking guidance from WP:RS, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Though the issue with the current sources is independence. Graevemoore (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[29][30]and from the author[31].Geni 21:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't tell much about link #1, as most of the pages seem to be 404s. I wouldn't call it reliable. #2 just seems to be some issue directory for an episode that mentions the name of the character in question. I wouldn't call that substantial coverage of her. #3 doesn't seem to contain substantial mention, either. Even so, the artist commissioned to draw the character isn't independent, anyway. Graevemoore (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
1 and #3 are neither reliable nor independant. I don't get what #2 is supposed to demonstrate. Bridies (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
How is 1 not independant?Geni 23:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. #1 is independant but not (as I see it) reliable. #3 isn't independant.Bridies (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
1 is not reliable, 2 is trivial (WP:N requires nontrivial sources explicitly), and 3 is not independent. User:Krator (t c) 00:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a discussion, not a vote. Bridies (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Its a raildroading based on pedandtry is what it is, just like most afds.68.81.95.231 (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with you. Most users they just take one search through the internet find nothing and decide I'll delete it.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Do feel free to actually back up that statement. Bridies (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - While the Archie Comics Sonic universe has literally THOUSANDS of characters, this one is one of the few notable ones if not solely for stories involving the Knuckles character, who is very major in the Sonic series altogether. I haven't yet looked at the article, but I'm sure it's possible to make it out of universe. Also, I fail to see the justification of putting a major plot character in an article about minor characters. Doing such a thing would be contradictory to the article.GrandMasterGalvatron (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, the comics books Sonic the Hedgehog and Knuckles the Echidna are reliable sources. There's no reason you couldn't write a neutral, verifiable article with no original research about this character. Julie-Su is notable as a fictional character for being the girlfriend of Knuckles the Echinda and Wikipedia is not paper. --Pixelface (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • There's a lot of assertion of notability here, but I'm still failing to see any evidence that applies directly to WP:NOTE. What is it about this character that meets the criterion there? Where is the significant independent coverage? Graevemoore (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • WP:NOTE is just a suggestion. Just because an article doesn't contain significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, that doesn't mean the topic is not notable. Look at most articles in Category:Mountain ranges for example. --Pixelface (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • No, it is a guideline. And guidelines should generally be followed. Guideline doesn't mean "Feel free to ignore" for whatever reason. And I see no reason why Wikipedia's real-world coverage suffers as a loss of this article. If you feel that there are a lot of mountain ranges that aren't notable, I encourage you to WP:SOFIXIT and nominate them for deletion. Graevemoore (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Just noticed I haven't 'voted' yet. The character fails WP:N. There is no substantial coverage in reliable, independant sources. As Graevemoore points out, no one has actually countered this problem.Bridies (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah he said that, but hadn't actually done it. It needs to be multiple, reliable, independant sources in any case.Bridies (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops, didn't see the afd was closed, sorry for modifying it.Bridies (talk) 09:35, 18 May 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.  Sandstein  19:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laurence Clancy

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

Totally unsouurced biography for person of doubtful notability, whose only Google appearance appears to be this article RolandR (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Please retain. I created the article on Laurence Clancy for one reason. I have cited his book Aerodynamics many, many times. I contribute to Wikipedia in the area of aerodynamics, fluid mechanics and aviation. Clancy's book is brilliantly clear and well-written. It is my source and inspiration for most of my work. Readers of Wikipedia are entitled to ask "Who is this L.J. Clancy? Does he or she have credibility on this subject?" I created the biographical article as a stub to provide a little information about this author, and in the hope that others would expand the stub. I am a resident of Australia, a long way from Bradford University and Cranfield where Clancy worked so I am reliant on others to provide some up-to-date information.
In the field of aerodynamics and fluid mechanics there are other cited authors who have a biographical article to shed some light on their background and therefore their credentials. For example, see the WP articles on the following authors, all of whom are cited in articles such as Hydrodynamics:
George Batchelor
John D. Anderson
Horace Lamb
Lev Landau
Evgeny Lifshitz
When I cite Clancy, or write about him, there is no conflict of interest. Dolphin51 (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but are you seriously comparing Clancy to George Batchelor? The latter produces impressive GoogleScholar results, with his book "The Theory of Homogeneous Turbulence" scoring 1533 cites and the other book "An Introduction to Fluid Mechanics" scoring 488 cites[33]. By cpmparison, Clancy's book does not even register in GoogleScholar[34], nor does anything else by him[35].
In any event, general WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are insufficient; you need to produce positive and verifiable evidence of notability. It might be that Clancy's "Aerodynamics" book is notable and that for some reason GoogleScholar and Web of Science are missing a large number of citations. If it can be shown that the book is notable per WP:BK then it is better to have a WP article about the book rather than the person. It would be easier to satisfy the notability requirements there. Even then, you would have to do some serious preparatory work before creating an article about the book. Look for sources that cite it, reviews of the book, evidence that it was used for courses, etc. Since you are an expert in the field, it should be easier for you to do this than for other people. In the meantime, I suggest that you look up the existing notability guidelines such as WP:BIO, WP:PROF, WP:N, WP:BK etc. Nsk92 (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not even talking about your comparison of Clancy with Lev Landau, a Nobel Prize winner and a scientific giant. Preposterous, don't you think? Nsk92 (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nsk92! I have not compared Clancy with anybody; not Batchelor, not Landau, nor anyone else. You are the one who has introduced the concept of comparison of one person with another. If you carefully read my words on this page you will see I wrote only that certain articles (eg Hydrodynamics) cite certain authors and provide links to biographical articles about those authors. (eg Batchelor et al). My words are statements of fact. Thank you for the links to WP articles. I will study them. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • delete per Nsk92, no evidence of notable impact as a academic, or otherwise. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clancy is the author of Aerodynamics. This is a 587-page textbook in the field of Aeronautical Engineering. It is one of the Pitman Aeronautical Engineering Series.[1]
Aerodynamics was published in the United Kingdom. [2] Its content reflects over seven years of teaching aerodynamics to students at the Royal Air Force College, Cranwell UK.[3] It was widely used as a textbook in the UK, Australia and other British Commonwealth countries. It was also published in the USA by John Wiley and Sons, Inc.[4]
Clancy qualifies as a notable academic using Criterion No. 3 given here. He also matches Example No. 1 given here. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the book was intended to be used as a textbook does not imply that it has been widely used as a textbook. If you provide actual evidence of the latter, that would be convincing in terms of satisfying WP:PROF.Nsk92 (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Advisory Editor of the PAES, Air Vice-Marshal A.C. Kermode R.A.F. (Ret’d.) has written “The books in this series are intended primarily as textbooks for students at universities and technical colleges who are studying aeronautical engineering in one or more of its various branches with the aim of obtaining degrees or diplomas in aeronautical engineering or allied subjects.” Clancy, L.J., Aerodynamics, page ii
  2. ^ Clancy, L.J. (1975), Aerodynamics, Pitman Publishing Limited, London ISBN 0 273 01120 0
  3. ^ ”This book is the product of over seven years of teaching aerodynamics to officer cadets and student officers at the Royal Air Force College, Cranwell.” L.J. Clancy. Author’s preface (p. xv), Aerodynamics, Pitman Publishing Limited, London
  4. ^ Clancy, L.J. (1975), Aerodynamics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York NY ISBN-13:9780470158371 ISBN 0470158379


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 revert to redirect. Calling WP:SNOW on this ridiculous... thing.-Wafulz (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vampirism

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

Reads like an enlistment brochure crossed with a how-to manual. No references cited. Would need a complete re-write even if it is a valid topic.

User appears to have cannibalized the FA "vampire" for the talk page when the redirect was cut. Matt Deres (talk) 12:14, 11 May 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.  Sandstein  19:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tank Mania

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

Article cites no sources to assert notability or verifiability per WP:N and WP:V. Content includes a large amount of information that would be more suitable for a manual or strategy guide per WP:NOT#MANUAL. Article has had maintenance tags on it since September 07 and been through a contested PROD, hence the reason to raise it here Gazimoff WriteRead 10:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak delete - Per nom. asenine say what? 11:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Jeandré, 2008-05-11t14:31z
  • Delete as an Internet-based game project of some kind with no assertion to notability. I would just say weak delete except the unreferenced last section appears to make this an attack article meant to disparage the project's creator, which puts this in the strong and possibly speedy delete category. KleenupKrew (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: Not notable, with a lot of unverified information. There might be stuff out there to support this article, but I haven't found it. Randomran (talk) 14:41, 15 May 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.  Sandstein  19:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ankhet

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

No indication of notability (WP:N), no independent references (WP:V). Tagged with notability concern last year, which was removed with the comment "We're working on notability." There have been no improvements since then. Marasmusine (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - Per nom. Notability is not asserted. asenine say what? 09:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete if it was tagged last year and still unchanged, it's unlikely to ever be improved. But there is indeed a lack of indication of notability and verified information. Most of it seems quite GAMEGUIDE-y to me. --.:Alex:. 09:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Prod and notability template failed to generate any, so it seems like the article is never going to be improved. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. I couldn't find anything on Google that suggests that the game is notable enough to justify an article. — Wenli (reply here) 01:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It's hard to argue against a deletion when you're not notified of it (How does the watchlist function work? It didn't notify me. :() On the article, there were sources linked, but they were deleted as 'spam'. It's a game where information sharing is discouraged (so as to increase your own advantage), so we don't have anything like kolwiki and probably won't. Being really competitive means that information won't be made public (especially since it's against the game's Tos.) There are 10 public directory yahoo groups for Ankhet. I'd guess that there is at least as many private ones. (With regards to the wiki again, some have tried (and failed). http://ankhet.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page)
    http://kol.coldfront.net/index.php/content/view/1594/43/
    Does being mentioned on a news site for a different game count as notable? (Sorry if I used bad formatting, I'm not very good at it.) Gwendolyr (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, neither of those can be used (see WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided and WP:Reliable sources.) Wikis, blogs and directory entries that mention the game do not show that it is notable. What we are looking for are substantial articles, interviews or reviews from independent sources that are known for their reliability. Marasmusine (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    I figured as much. :( In that case, could I copy the article over to my userpage (or similar) and keep it there (and revise) until such a time where we have reliable sources? Gwendolyr (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    Absolutely; copy the content to somewhere like User:Gwendolyr/Ankhet. Remember to comment out the categories by starting them with [[: Marasmusine (talk) 15:08, 15 May 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 01:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intuitive Games

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

Wikipedia is not a collection of stuff made up one day. An article on "intuitive" game rules and gameplay might be workable (if highly prone to authorial POV), but this article only covers one specific "intuitive" game that was invented by the article's creator(s). -Sean Curtin (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a place for stuff you make up out of the blue, and with no sources. asenine say what? 08:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems like pretty clear example of WP:OR/WP:MADEUP to me. Olaf Davis | Talk 10:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's either a made-up game or a game invented by a couple of kids DarkZorro 12:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. — Wenli (reply here) 01:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as Asenine comments, a suitable article on impromptu games of this sort might be written (There are books on childrens' games that could be used for proper sourcing.), but this is not a reasonable start. DGG (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep.  Sandstein  19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Equal Parenting Alliance

Equal Parenting Alliance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable political party. Has 100 members and in the three elections it has contested has only managed a grand total of 232 votes. The article been speedily deleted before but I am bringing it to AFD this time as one of the elections was national not local (Scottish Parliament) but even so the candidate only convinced 124 of the 33,785 people who voted in that constituency. nancy (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Does not satisfy WP:ORG. asenine say what? 08:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Asenine as it makes no reference to independent sources per WP:ORG Olaf Davis | Talk 10:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep although I do not have a subscription and cannot read the articles, I believe these sources (Liverpool Echo) and (Birmingham Post) meet the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject standard of notability. The articles also make the party verifiable, Wikipedia's key content standard. Regards, EJF (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per EJF. Matt Deres (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article refers to the UK electoral commission registration record, this I believe is independent and verifiable proof the party exists as the article states. I do not accept that the number of votes is a relevant fact and certainly it does not necessarily reflect notability. For many small parties, the point in existence is the campaign and publicity attached - nobody ever expects a small party to get elected. Perhaps a parties aims can be met by persuading people to vote for one of the other candidates? (NB New user, not sure if this is correct way to debate this issue). Steveepa (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There are sources for this subject. It satisfy WP:ORG. Dekisugi (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a real Political Party, although small it is growing and exists in the public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.139.163 (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC) — 82.23.139.163 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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, then made into redirect. DS (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From My Cold Dead Hands

Originally nominated for speedy deletion but that is generally not appropriate for hoax articles, which is what this appears to be. I find no sources whatsoever describing this film and as such assume that it does not in fact exist. Footnoted sources do not actual establish the existence of the film. Should be deleted as a hoax. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

G3 has been changed to remove hoaxes from it explicitly. I believe the discussion was archived, so it should be in the most recent archive of WT:CSD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
For anyone who is interested, I believe the discussion to which you are referring is here. This article did not seem to be "blatant and obvious misinformation" (though I think it is misinformation) which is why the appropriate course seemed to be declining the speedy nom and taking it to AfD. Obviously in the end this article will not exist (having a redirect makes sense) but we generally err on the side of caution when it comes to speedying "hoax" articles.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect as a reasonable search term, but I don't see any reason to delete the old versions. Doesn't WP:AfD#How to discuss an AfD ask people not to !vote redirect and delete? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    Normally ... but in the case of misinformation I don't think the history needs to be kept and recreating the page as a redirect after its being deleted seems logical. Agathoclea (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    The license that Wikipedia operates under requires the history of contributions to be maintained, so you must not merge and delete articles. However, if none of the information from an article is actually being merged to the redirect target (as in this case it's all completely fictitious) there is no problem with deleting it then making a redirect. ~ mazca talk 22:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete ASAP, but redirect to existing article. Almost did a redirect to the Charlton Heston article and would have redirected it per Sean Curtin had I done a search here for the term. Sorry, but I can't believe we're even considering whether or not to keep an untruth such as this. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as a hoax.--Berig (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:02, 12 May 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 01:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Curiosity Friday

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

Completely neologistic day. asenine say what? 07:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NEO and a rather pure case of WP:MADEUP. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Should have been speedied. Not even worth an AFD. Electricbassguy (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As it is not-notable with no sources. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 12:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - blatantly WP:MADEUP. This is could really be speedy-deleted but I'll note that it doesn't quite seem to fit any of the existing criteria. ~ mazca talk 12:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEO and per WP:MADEUP.--Berig (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. If you're curious, Mr. Stadleman will explain it this Friday. Mandsford (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was merge to CVECA. There's nothing to merge any more, so I'm just redirecting.  Sandstein  19:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caisse villageoise d'épargne et de crédit autogérée

Caisse villageoise d'épargne et de crédit autogérée (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Just a dictionary definition translation, plus it's not clear that this term is in widespread use in English. The given source barely mentions it, providing nothing more than a translation. Powers T 21:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable, as far as I can make out. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Microfinance. It is a notable concept, but it is best described in the context of the Microfinance] article. --Eastmain (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge what, exactly? There's nothing here. Powers T 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a bit tricky. I don't think this is really a type of microbank per se, it's more like an NGO with many local affiliates. Search terms: cveca+mali.--Dhartung | Talk 21:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree, there's nothing there really to merge. Non-notable and no sources.Renee (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I would be very disappointed if you delete this article. It is about a distinctive type of financial intermediaries that solves problems no other financial intermediaries can solve (delivering services where no other financial intermediary can deliver them). It is certainly notable in the context of microfinance, but the microfinance article itself is hardly the place for details on the many different types of intermediaries that serve poor populations. Obviously it not an article yet in any meaningful sense. I have added points on the talk page and will expand it if I can find appropriate sources. CVECAs (this term is used in english language microfinance literature all the time) are easily more notable than 95% of the articles on Wikipedia. By the way, they are microbanks, not NGOs.Brett epic (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, merging with the content now at CVECA. This appears to be some sort of savings and loan style financial institution operating in French speaking Africa. Ordinarily, I'd say to redirect to the fuller, existing article, but the manual of style suggests that the expanded name should be preferred over the acronym. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice. Nothing there to merge. I'd suggest redirection but it's an unlikely search term. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to CVECA. I am the original author of this, and created it because of the redlink to CVECAs in the microfinance article. It does seem that there is some distinctive feature of this system of lending that might not be captured in the related pages, though I am only guess as I am not an expert. Milkfish (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge unless more content can be added Faith (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to CVECA as this term is widely used in English-speaking microfinance circles. Most people don't know the French acronym. I wrote the CVECA article after posting my objection to deleting this one above; the CVECA article now contains all the content in this one and more.Brett epic (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge - Merge it to CVECA. asenine say what? 09:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Despite a clear "keep" majority, some "keep"s are of the weak WP:EVERYTHING and WP:GHITS type.  Sandstein  19:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro lens

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro lens
Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro lens (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article doesn't assert and there doesn't appear to be evidence that this is in any way a notable camera lens. Ghits are mainly locations it can be purchased with no evidence of any significant reviews other than personal blogs. Wikipedia is not a camera guide or a HowTo, this is far too detailed for an encyclopedic article and I'm not sure that a re-direct to Sigma Corporation#Telephoto Zoom Lenses would be appropriate as I highly doubt this as a search term. Talk to Cari the Busy Bee 03:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment With the amount of Google-spam produced by people trying to sell equipment like this, it's become increasingly hard to find real content about products by Googling for them. The real articles get lost in the spam noise. I don't think, therefore, that it's valid to use lack of finding useful content on Google to support a deletion. As to the rest, I'll see if I can find any details. However, the full name of a lens is a valid search term so I'd keep this as a redirect at least. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • On further reflection, Keep. Sourced to one third-party review (ephotozine) and the manufacturer's website. Wikipedia can be a specialist encyclopedia as well as a general one, and an encyclopedia of camera equipment would probably include this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, valid product which clearly exists. Need more articles like it. Stifle (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge There are reviews on essentially all lenses, and i do not think that this is enough. Looking at comparable product lines, there is a redirect from Canon New FD 200mm f/2.8) to Canon FD 200 mm lens where a number are listed, giving in each case a description of the key features and a reference--these probably should be supplemented by references to product reviews. There may be a few pathbreaking ones where a separate article is appropriate--I see no evidence this is one. WP is not a product catalog. DGG (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
sure, and Adorama will also have a listing for all of its 10,000 other products. Amazon and other store catalog listings do not establish notability. that reason is actually a good explanation of why we delete articles like this. We are not an advertising medium. DGG (talk) 03:25, 12 May 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.  Sandstein  19:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs with city names in the title

List of songs with city names in the title (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominated for the same reason as its recently deleted sister article, List of songs with state names in the title. Like the aformentioned article, I initially prodded this on the grounds that it was unencyclopaedic, but the tag was removed by the author. The sister article was deleted a day or so ago per AFD discussion, so, considering this list is essentially the same thing, I decided to take this here as well. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 07:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Entertaining, sure. But trivial and unencyclopedic, especially when you consider the unforgiveable sin of having skipped over the Stompin' Tom Connors opus "Sudbury Saturday Night". Okay, that last bit's not really part of my reasoning. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as trivial and not encyclopedic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, has no place here. Punkmorten (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Trivial and unencyclopedic. asenine say what? 09:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Child, are you a deletionist? And I said Ma'am I am tonight! Delete JuJube (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I can name literally hundreds not already on this list. Proof indeed that such a list is indiscriminate in nature. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Oh puh-lease. Trivial and unencyclopedic. Madman (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate and organized list). Referencing issues should be solved per Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Even if a similar article was deleted, it's irrelevant, because 1) consensus can change and 2) such an argument is essentially Wikipedia:ALLORNOTHING anyway. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment— Consensus can change, but it is not at all likely that it will change after just two days, as it has been. It appears that the general consensus here so far is still to delete it; And, furthermore, I nom'd this because it has the exact same problems as the other list; There is absolutely no difference between this and the other, besides the fact that one happens to involve city names, and one has to do with state names. Both indiscriminate, and unencyclopaedic. I don't see any way we can make this article encyclopaedic at all, as the notion of a list about songs with cities/states in the title itself (and there are a lot of songs like this, therefore making it unmaintainable) was dead on arrival. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 18:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as trivia.--Berig (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Indiscriminate, trivia, nothing encyclopedic about this. KleenupKrew (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's indiscriminate, trivial and although I like little lists like these, it violates WP:LISTS. I'm not going to complain about missing songs (like "Chicago" by Sufjan Stevens) because if I really wanted to I could just add before it's inevitable deletion Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 18:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Trivia is encyclopedic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as trivial and non-encyclopedic. However, there may be some other GFDL-compliant wiki that would take the article, such as the Music Wiki. The article could be transwikied over there if they want it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the material is acceptable for other encyclopedias and Wikis then it is acceptable on the one that is a compendium of both general and specialized encyclopedias as well as almanacs. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There is a "Lists of songs" category out there and this article fits it. If you delete this, delete every song in said category. GeoffEighinger (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment— What you're saying is WP:ALLORNOTHING. This article fails several guidelines/policies and is unencyclopaedic, as is the other list. I am not nominating this just because I don't like it. This list just doesn't seem to meet the necessary criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia, and, per TPH, there are hundreds of songs that could be on this article, and the only thing they have in common is that they have city names in the title. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 03:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:IMPERFECT. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Ballad of Delete City' Sounds like a good idea to me. If there's not a rule called "WP:PYRAMID", there should be. If the title of the article sounds like a clue on the game show "Pyramid", then it's more of a parlor game and less of an encyclopedia article. A list of songs with ____ in the title is not likely to last. On the other hand, a list of songs that refer to city council meetings as part of their lyrics... might be a keeper. Mandsford (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Any arguement to keep could be applied to any list of anything "List of films with colours in the title", "List of books featuring characters with names of fruit" etc etc. Unencyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 14:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Please note WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It doesn't apply here because Yobmod is explaining *why* it's unencyclopaedic. Basically, he says that using this standard we would fill the encyclopedia with useless lists. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It applies, because what's useless to some, is useful to others, and thus that just adds to the subjectivity of the argument. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete If a song is notable for a certain city, then list it at the city article. This is an indiscriminate collection of unrelated stuff --Enric Naval (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, Lists need to be more than organized, they need to have meaningful commonalities, which this is not. Graevemoore (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • They are all songs that all have city names all in the titles, which makes three meaningful commonalities. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Meaningful is an inherently subjective term, and I feel that simply having a vague similarity in the name doesn't do anything. Why not "List of songs beginning with A"? "List of songs with three words in the title"?Graevemoore (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Inherently subjective terms include "non-notable" and "unencyclopedic." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Yes, that's correct. The terms "reliable", "independent", and "substantial" are all subjective. That doesn't mean that we can't argue for their application in certain circumstances. And if there is a consensus that a connection is not meaningful, then the appropriate action is taken. Every day, legal systems around the world do the same with "Reasonable doubt", "due care", and "probable cause". "Subjective" does not mean "unactionable". Graevemoore (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • This is exactly what I am talking about. Per Graevemoore, these songs have almost nothing to do with each other. We might as well have an article called "List of songs containing the preposition 'in'". This doesn't make any sense. Lists have to be useful. We needn't an article that serves no purpose but briefly display song titles which happen to have city (or state) names in the title. However, if you like, LGRdC, we could turn this into a category. What do you think? Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 00:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


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

The result was speedy deleted by Cryptic (A7: nngroup). Non admin closure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Smurfs United

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

Non-notable indoor football team. asenine say what? 06:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not notable. Enigma message 07:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The subject has no significant championship wins to his credit so the question is whether the secondary sources are sufficient to achieve notability. Until the relisting opinion was divided on this question. However, the later commentators have had the benefit of examining the additional sources found during the AfD and have judged them insufficient. There is clearly scope for this page to be recreated if better sources can be located and added to the article, and I am happy to userfy it to anyone who wishes to develop it. TerriersFan (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nightmare (wrestler)

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

Non-notable wrestler with none-barely any information/references in the article iMatthew 2008 15:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —iMatthew 2008 16:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If anything asserts notability for this wrestler, it is in this article. Is this sufficient? I'm undecided. One one hand, we have decided that simply signing with a WWE developmental territory isn't enough (which this wrestler has not yet done), but he does have a story about him in an independent source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
However I don't believe that is enough to cover an article. iMatthew 2008 16:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This article has a notable source (and I added another notable third-party source recently - SA Music). Note: Can we get more people to vote? There's always 1 or 2 nominators who generally share the same opinion. Adding 3 more would provide a more decisive vote (whether that be keep or delete). Ajstyles tna roh (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, notability is not asserted. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note - at least three other professional wrestlers have performed under the name Nightmare: Diego "Nightmare" Sanchez (mainly in UFC and VPW [36]) and Jonathan Wehali (several organizations[37]). There was also The Masked Nightmare in NWA and Georgia Championship Wrestling. With sourcing, a dab page might not be unreasonable here.B.Wind (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    • ... and oh, by the way, I'd recommend a keep as part of a nationally touring troupe with regular media coverage in southern Africa. B.Wind (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • On the fence, the independent source helps with notability and so does being on The Sports Show. However, he hasn't been wrestling that long, and has yet to win a championship. If this is deleted, then I think there should be no prejudice for recreation if notability can 100% be established. Nikki311 23:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bearcat (talk) 06:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Does not assert notability, per nom. asenine say what? 09:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as wrestlingcruft.--Berig (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment This would be much more helpful is "wrestlingcruft" was defined. Please explain your comments further. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
      • He does not appear to have won any championship and he doesn't appear to be very notable.--Berig (talk) 04:49, 12 May 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, no assertion of actual notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bishop of Carnage

Bishop of Carnage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article creator removed db-band and noted that "BoC gained notability in 2008 as being the first Wise County band to upload music onto the internet". I'm not sure that this is sufficient to meet the notability guidelines (and it's uncited, to boot), but it is at least an assertion of notability. There's nothing else to indicate that this band meets the WP:MUSIC notability criteria, Google searches are unusually barren and even catalogue sites like All Music Guide do not have an entry for them. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, vandalism, obvious hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aleksander Mapelz

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

Hoax -- originally proposed for deletion by Cunard since it appeared to be made up (no Google hits for an supposed NHL player), prod was removed by an anonymous editor who continued to expand the article oddly. ArglebargleIV (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong delete, blatant hoax. Article created by User:APMKC95, which indicates some sort of WP:COI or boredteencruft. Tagged as CSD G3 per the "blatant and obvious misinformation" clause. --Kinu t/c 06:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious hoax; no google hits apart from WP. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - As blatant hoax.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 01:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Student Approaches to Learning

Student Approaches to Learning (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be an OR Essay LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:54, 11 May 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 consensus and taking into account meatpuppetry.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nicki Scully

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

A Google News search gets 22 hits but most seem to be calendar listings. Google Scholar gets 4 hits. The article lacks WP:V or WP:RS, only her commercial website provides some info. I just don't see much there but if people can dig up more, great. Pigman☿ 04:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Per nom.
  • Delete per nom. Madman (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, per nom. — Wenli (reply here) 19:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Before simply following Pigman's lead, I would hope you would do a regular google search on this author yourselves (not just a "Google News Search"). I don't know what he's talking about; I get plenty of hits, including radio appearances and interviews, and multiple mentions in Grateful Dead biographies (she was Rock Scully's wife, and one of her recorded meditations has a soundtrack by members of the Grateful Dead). Some of these books have such notable authors as Robert Greenfield and Paul Krassner. She's written several books which have been quoted as references in other books, and produced recordings for adults and children. I've added two recently released books, and various bits of data like interviews, references, ISBN and UPC numbers, etc.Rosencomet (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Added a great deal of info, including additional books, CDs, mention of Rex Foundation grant, titles, etc. Please review before deciding. Rosencomet (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep You've got to be kidding. Egyptologist Nicki Scully isn't notable enough for you? Didn't you just question Nevill Drury, too? Have you got something against shamanism authors? She's got twice as many books out as Michael Harner or Piers Vitebsky, plus all the tapes and CDs she's got, plus all the Grateful Dead stuff that's got her mentioned in all those GD books. According to the article, she's worked with Jerry Garcia and got a Rex Foundation grant. That alone, along with being Rock Scully's ex-wife, and her books, and the LARGE number of google hits I get would be enough for a Deadhead like me. I mean, she's not Joseph Campbell, but IMHO she certainly known enough for an article. She's just the sort of person someone might want to look UP on Wikipedia. JuliusAaron (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC) — JuliusAaron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment: Egyptology is a serious academic discipline. Does she have an advanced degree from an accredited academic institution? Does she publish her research in academic journals or through academic presses? This spurious claim pretty much sums up her lack of notability by the standards we use here.PelleSmith (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong KeepThis is a well-published and well-respected author and teacher. I agree with the above, just on the Grateful Dead connections alone, she rates, let alone her books. Pigman is pushing a personal agenda based on dislike of a subject rather than actual arguments that demonstrate or don't demonstrate notability. Claim of "not notable" as with other of Pigman's noms is disingenuous. Foolio93 (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Her body of work is both sufficiently extensive and varied enough to make her notable. -- Davidkevin (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Nicki Scully is notable enough IMO Vittala (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC) — Vittala (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete Notability must be established through reliable secondary sources. I don't know if Pigman is pushing an agenda but either way Pigman is not wrong to claim that such notability has not been established here.PelleSmith (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To Closing Admin: Please be aware that there is a Admin Noticeboard/Incidents thread on recent off-wiki canvassing by User:Rosencomet. This AfD is probably affected by this canvassing. Thanks. Pigman☿ 03:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The possibility of a merger can be discussed on the article talk page.  Sandstein  19:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian immigrant benefits urban legend

Canadian immigrant benefits urban legend (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article (originally titled "Canadian Refugee Policy") was made primarily to talk about a supposed urban legand. I don't see proof it's a big deal in Canada, and doubt it will be of lasting interest. While some of the original article was about the generic issue of "Canadian Refugee Policy", it wasn't of sufficient size/quality to use anywhere, which is why I renamed the article, and AFD'd it. Rob (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep This urban legend/hoax email has been circulated in the mainstream media of numerous countries, including Australia, using exactly the same figures strangely enough. The ABC program Media Watch has covered it three times recently: [38], [39] and [40]. I would remove the Canadian focus, as the international coverage may make it more notable. --Canley (talk) 05:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Immigration, as a separate section headed "As source of urban legends". The story that immigrants receive preferential treatment over native citizens is indeed an international phenomenon tracked by observers like Snopes [41] and surfaces regularly in mainstream media, so it's notable. However, very few urban legends have separate Wikipedia articles (exceptions include Sewer alligators and Vanishing hitchhiker), and these tend to be more general in nature rather than this article about one specific incidence. This material, in a shorter form and with its citations, would sit well as a part of a couple of paragraphs in the Immigration article along with examples from other countries. -- Karenjc 08:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Canley's excellent analysis and research. Debate (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. --Padraic 15:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per Canley, and per the WP:RS already in the article. The Toronto Star is Canada's largest circulation daily, and the legend has spread to both Australia and the US, further proof that it is not shortlived. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge per Karenjc. This is an urban legend that's been related to multiple countries, not just Canada, although I think it is notable enough to be included in a broader article on the general topic. Risker (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and re-name per Canley and Shawn in Montreal. GreenJoe 20:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per Canley. It is a persistent urban legend and reliable sources are available. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I've begin broadening the focus of the article, per the discussion here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Since the consensus is to do what you've done (broaden it), I renamed the article. Given there's consensus to keep the material, I wouldn't object to somebody closing this AFD early, since any further discussion probably belongs on the talk page of the article. --Rob (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep it's a good article, stands on its own. Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Snowball keep well sourced article, clearly notable. DigitalC (talk) 11:58, 13 May 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.
Articles for deletion archives This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article M. S. El Naschie. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 consensus and taking into account meatpuppetry.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Chernin

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

After doing a Google news search and a Google Scholar search, I don't really find anything notable on Dennis Chernin. There isn't a single source except for his own website. The article reads more like a resume than an encyclopedic article. If I thought these were fixable problems, I'd fix it myself but I can't find WP:V sources. Without sources, this becomes a bit of a WP:BLP problem. He's written books but I don't find any indication that they've sold well or that they've been cited. Unless more is dug up, I'm leaning toward delete. Pigman☿ 03:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep, was able to find a couple of sources on him. For instance, he's described here as a "Noted author", and here it notes that "is the medical director of two county public health departments in Michigan (no other present homeopath holds this important position in the public health arena!)". These are not the best refs, but he seemingly is somewhat influential in the homeopathy community. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC).
  • Comment: I have to say I find it less than persuasive when his publisher calls him a "Noted author." The second instance you cited above is a bit more interesting in terms of background and content (although it's packed with promotional language because the site is selling his book). I'd still like to see something a little more about him from a WP:V source other than people who are selling his work. Pigman☿ 05:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability and written by an editor whose work is often found on these AfD pages. Madman (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nothing in GoogleScholar or GoogleNews. I also searched WoS and Medline and did not find anything there either. Clearly fails WP:PROF and I don't see anything to suggest that he passes WP:BIO either. Nsk92 (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable by our established standards, just a curiosity. DGG (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • delete no evidence of the extensive coverage in independent secondary sources required to establish notability. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I've added some more material to the article, including awards hid CD-Rom has won and some references. Still looking for more. Rosencomet (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The cdbaby.com link [42] is something but it is still very weak. It is a promo page by the seller of his CD, so it does not qualify as an independent source. The two awards for the CD mentioned there, 1997 Health Information Awards and the 1997 Communicator Awards, need to be put in context and verified by an independent source. From the link given it is completely unclear what these awards are, who gives them, etc. In general, they would have to be pretty major awards to confer notability on the author rather than on the CD. Nsk92 (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - This article is notable enough. Vittala (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Vittala is NOT nor has he ever been a sock-puppet. He was mistakenly accused of it, and cleared.Rosencomet (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't seem to be notable.PelleSmith (talk) 20:18, 15 May 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 with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bunky and Jake

Bunky and Jake (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Two albums for Mercury (apparently), but no reliable sources to be seen aside from the Rolling Stone source. Proof in my opinion that WP:MUSIC isn't always set in stone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn, never thought to check Google Books. Good enough for me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:16, 12 May 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. A highly meritorious project but for a page on it to survive it needs reliable, secondary coverage, which it hasn't. There was a unanimous view that the article should be deleted. TerriersFan (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Youthink Magazine

Absolutely no substantial coverage of subject in reliable news media. All sources are simply advertisement-like or massive directories. Also, has a 1.5 million Alexa ranking for its website.Electricbassguy (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete, an interesting project certainly, but there doesn't appear to be any secondary coverage of their activities. Searching was difficult because apparently "youthink" is a popular word for projects of this nature, hence the "weak". Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete Nothing convincing on Google. — Wenli (reply here) 19:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:04, 12 May 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. Whilst at first, this AfD was going towards the deletion side, there was extensive work done on the article as the debate progressed. As this was done, there was a large switch in the comments and a clear consensus to keep the article, hence my decision. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to genetics

Introduction to genetics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

The lead on the Genetics article constitutes an introduction for the layman to this subject. I don't see the point of this article. Perhaps redirect. Nk.sheridan   Talk 01:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Nk.sheridan, I'd like to know why you think a layman could understand the introduction to Genetics. As I explained below, I don't think he could. Nbauman (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
My rough count below is Delete 8, Keep 8, Merge 3. So we don't have a consensus to delete.
But consensus isn't just a vote. We have to address issues. I think there is one outstanding problem for keeping that nobody has answered: Genetics is too difficult for a layman or ordinary non-specialist reader. Can somebody address that problem?
If we did delete Introduction to Genetics, then we would have to substandially edit Genetics to meet the Wikipedia requirement of being understandable to the non-specialist. That would start with a rewrite of the lead -- maybe replacing it with the lead from Introduction to Genetics. Do you agree to a substantial rewrite of Genetics? Nbauman (talk)
Comment No, I don't agree with a substantial rewrite of Genetics. Perhaps I've made a mistake nominating Introduction to genetics for AfD. I saw the article as unneeded at time of nomination although I'm currently not sure this was a valid reason for my nomination. Regardless, it appears that the prevailing opinion and best arguments are for keeping the article. I appreciate the expansion work which perhaps I should have done myself! Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Nbauman: As I note below, it's not clear to me that you even read the article. Your misplaced criticism certainly seemed to indicate this. It's incredible to me that you'd be proposing a rewrite of it. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 18:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If people got defensive every time someone edited their manuscripts, and accused editors of not having read their article, we could never have editing. When you tell people that their writing is difficult to understand, they don't like to hear it. (One editor told me that she marks up a manuscript, sends it back to the writer, and leaves town for a weekend where she can't be reached.) But Genetics is difficult to understand.
Scientists usually write papers to demonstrate how much they know, to their supervisors, who know more than them. You can't write that way for the non-specialist public.
I write about biomedicine for a living and I've had editors throw stuff back at me because it was so technical that nobody would read it. I've learned to write in ways that people can understand. I spend my days reading transcripts of presentations by doctors and rewriting their words so that other doctors (not laymen) will easily understand them. My magazines compete with the peer-reviewed journals for doctors' time, and the reason doctors read us rather than the prestigeous professional society journals is that they can't get through those journals and they can get through my stories. So I have a good sense of how difficult a piece of scientific writing is.
And it's not just my subjective feeling. There's a lot of communications research out there. If you don't believe me, use the scientific method: Find a typical non-specialist reader -- say, a secretary or computer technician who is not a biology student -- ask that person to read Genetics, and then ask them what an "allele" is.
As I keep repeating, if you want to see a good model of how to write about complicated biomedicine in a way that ordinary people can understand it, the best example I know is the Merck Manual Home Edition. I know some of the people who worked on it (and people who edit Scientific American, Discover, and other books and magazines), and they explained to me how they do it.
Most manuscripts that are written by scientists for publication in peer-reviewed journals or textbooks go through at least 3 and often 10 or more drafts. I don't know why you think you can get it right by yourself the first time.
For example, in a McGraw-Hill textbook, editors will check to make sure that every paragraph has a simple topic sentence. In the New England Journal of Medicine, they clearly indicate parallel ideas with an obvious parallel structure, and by introducing each separate idea with "First .... Second .... Third ...."
Let's take an example from Genetics -- the complicated sentence construction. Simple, direct sentences are easier to read. You wrote:
With this molecular understanding of inheritance, an explosion of research that applied this new knowledge to biology became possible.
Why not just say:
This new molecular understanding of inheritance created an explosion of research.
You admit that Genetics in places is "dense." Well, that's not a trivial problem. If you string a lot of dense paragraphs together, the cognitive burden makes it unreadable. (Especially on the computer screen.) I read Genetics (several times by now) and I had trouble, and I already know the content. I read about genetics in Science and I don't have trouble. You don't know the writing tricks that the editors of Science know to make this content easier to understand.
I realize people have an emotional investment in their own writing WP:OWN, and I've been guilty of that myself. (An editor at the New York Times Washington Bureau got his girlfriend a job writing for them, and she came back to him and said, "Darling! They're changing my words!")
But the most important thing I learned about writing is: it's pointless to write something if your target audience can't understand it. The ordinary reader can't understand Genetics. Nbauman (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to own it, I am reacting to the criticisms you gave below that seemed to indicate you had not read the article you vehemently criticized. You are the one that made this personal by explicitly naming me in your criticism. The fact remains: you acted like the article did not define allele, but it did—I think it is reasonable that I interpreted this to mean that you did not read it. You're spending a lot of effort here telling us about how the writing is bad and telling us about your writing experience. I'd far rather you actually just fixed up these articles rather than tell me about how I'm not a Science writer, or a McGraw-Hill writer, or a Nobel prize winner, or a high school teacher. If you want to be credible, be constructive. I'm not upset if someone changes my words, but I am going to react badly when someone spits out an essay or two of rant over an FA article and doesn't make a move to improve it. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, anybody who has been through the PhD process is all too used to having their writing hacked, bent, deleted, expanded and reworded by their supervisor, advisers and collaborators. At the moment Nbauman and I are trying to improve the Intro to Genetics article so it is useful and distinct from the main article, since it doesn't look like it will be deleted. Once I've finished (you would be very welcome to help of course) I hope you'll look it over and see if I've made any unforgivable simplifications! Tim Vickers (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I brought up alleles to try to convince people not to delete the glossary from Introduction to Genetics. I thought it would be very helpful to a lay reader. (The NEJM has glossaries in its review articles, and -- in a journal for doctors -- defines terms like "allele.")
Here's the definition of "allele" in Introduction_to_Genetics:
Alleles are the different forms of a given gene that an organism may possess. For example, in humans, one allele of the eye-color gene produces green eyes and another allele of the eye-color gene produces brown eyes.
and here's the definition of "allele" in Genetics:
At its most fundamental level, inheritance in organisms occurs by means of discrete traits, called genes. This property was first observed by Gregor Mendel, who studied the segregation of heritable traits in pea plants. In his experiments studying the trait for flower color, Mendel observed that the flowers of each pea plant were either purple or white—and never an intermediate between the two colors. These different, discrete versions of the same gene are called alleles.
I'd like to know what other people think. Which definition is easier to understand? Even for a biology student?
And to anticipate the editors who say, "If a reader doesn't understand a technical term, he can just click on the Wikilink," here's what you get when you click on Allele:
An allele (pronounced /?æli?l/ (UK), /??li?l/ (US)) (from the Greek αλληλος allelos, meaning each other) is one member of a pair or series of different forms of a gene. Usually alleles are coding sequences, but sometimes the term is used to refer to a non-coding sequence. An individual's genotype for that gene is the set of alleles it happens to possess. In a diploid organism, one that has two copies of each chromosome, two alleles make up the individual's genotype. Alleles are prominently represented in a Punnett square.
I read that 4 times, and I can't understand it. Does anyone think that a non-specialist reader could understand that? Nbauman (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think both articles can be improved. However, this isn't really the place to discuss how the text of articles could be changed, and since we all now seem to agree that this introductory article needs fixing up and rewriting (rather than deleting) further discussion of genetics and introduction to genetics would probably be best on these article's respective talk pages. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Have we indeed concluded that we don't have consensus for deleting Introduction_to_genetics, and that we should not delete it? In that case, someone should remove the AfD tag, right? Nbauman (talk)
That's up to an uninvolved administrator. Not something I can do. 01:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I have an outstanding question that no one has answered, and I'd like an answer. Above, I gave the definition of "Allele" from Genetics and Introduction to genetics. I thought the definition from Introduction to genetics was easier to understand. Does anybody disagree? Nbauman (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


I see that the article has been edited quite a bit and it now reads much better. However, I still think it ought to be deleted. Ironically, the better this article gets, the more it looks like a substantive duplicate of Genetics, that is a clear content fork. I think that having content forks is a bad idea, for general policy reasons. I looked at Genetics and that article looks fine to me. I would prefer that people invested their time and effort in improving Genetics and making it more accessible, rather than in building a functional duplicate from scratch. Having said that, I don't have particularly strong feelings on this specific subject. It seems likely, based on how this AfD is developing, that the article will be kept and I am not going to loose any sleep over it. Nsk92 (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As I understand it, Wikipedia is not in the business of including articles that are overviews of subjects in order to make the actual articles on the subject more accessible to the reader. In any case, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a textbook, and the article itself is supposed to be a general overview of the subject, with some degree of detail. As I see it, if we consider all articles to be parts of the same encyclopedia, then they should all be suitable for the same general audience (a very broad general audience), so making articles directed specifically toward people who are unfamiliar with the subject seems unnecessary. And I don't think a redirect would be necessary, because I doubt people are going to look for an article called "Introduction to genetics" before they look for the genetics article. Calgary (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No need for this article. We already have Genetics. Electricbassguy (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Seems like an essay. Probably for a school project. Soxred93 (u t) 03:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Genetics. RC-0722 247.5/1 04:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useful into Genetics. If that article is not simple enough for someone unfamiliar with the subject to understand, that is a problem with the article, but not one that should be fixed by creating a separate "Introduction to..." sort of article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete There is no reason to merge this entry to the parent article. Someone who is unfamiliar with the subject can understand basic concepts from Genetics's lead section and can get further information from rest of the contents. I don't think people will search a topic named "Introduction to genetics" instead of "Genetics" for their needed information. Keep TimVickers has already put impressive effort on this article as it is well improved now.--NAHID 07:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Genetics, would provide some good info Light keep After rereading the article and observing Nbauman's response, I can see how it fits "keep" criteria Wiki Zorro 12:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There might be subtle POV issues here but they aren't jumping out at me, and I don't see anything to suggest that this needs to be deleted. Merge to Genetics in the very worst case, though for a broad topic such as genetics I'm pretty sure an "introduction to..." it could be salvaged and expanded to the same degree as:
So I'm beginning to think Keep and expand would be a better result. — CharlotteWebb 12:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • delete it may be possible to write a useful introduction to genetics article but this isn't it. Splitting effort away from the genetics article is not desirable and the article just isn't good enough to justify doing so.Genisock2 (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand. Introduction to articles are excellent resources for readers ill-acquainted with the topic at hand, and provide a welcome break from the main article, which are usually quite information-dense, and expect intimate knowledge of the topic at hand, or a general knowledge of science at the least. Extremely useful in Wikipedia's mission of educating the public. Those who vote delete due to quality of the article are invited to expand it instead. — Werdna talk 12:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, deleting articles that are A) useful and B) the result of someone's very hard work is A) discourteous and B) destructive. The goal of Wikipedia should be to be useful as a source of knowledge, not a bloody clone of Britannica, just worse. Let me sum this up: there are no real reasons not to keep this and similar articles, and they are useful for a large audience. This is why it's harmful to call Wikipedia an encylopaedia. (and no, do not dare whack me with WP:ATA) --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 13:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge at best - just because this is the result of "someone's very hard work" is no reason to keep an article. And, yes, according to WP:ATA, "it's useful" should not be used as an argument to keep an article. Finally, stating that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia is one of the strangest arguments I have heard. This article is a POV essay; anything useful should be placed into the Genetics article and the rest deleted. Madman (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:ATA is also a POV essay . Also, both content license requirements and common sense preclude "merge and delete" from being a valid outcome. If "anything useful should be placed into the Genetics article", the revisions which originally yielded should not deleted, only mildly obscured by a redirect. — CharlotteWebb 14:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • You're playing with terms you don't know the meaning of. This is not a "POV essay" in any way. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 15:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Not to argue that other things exist, but the fact that of other introductions to scienttific topics, two are FA and one is GA shows that the consensus is that this article is the sort of thing that Wikipedia includes. If it's a broken introduction, then fix it. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep since there are other articles intended to provide an easier introduction to a scientific topic. If there are issues with the article, fix them.--Berig (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I can't see a problem with keeping this article. I actually think it is much easier to understand by laypeople than the main Genetics article. It is a complicated subject and I think WP can benefit from a simpler description such as this. Pigman☿ 17:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


  • Strong keep. Wikipedia is written for the non-specialist, general reader. The main article, Genetics, is much too difficult for that audience. Even the introduction is too difficult.
If we delete Introduction to genetics, we will have to edit Genetics to make it simpler for the general audience, under Wikipedia rules.
It may be possible to rewrite Genetics for the general reader, but it would be difficult (probably contentious), and we'd have to take a lot out to keep it to reasonable length. It would be a lot easier to edit and improve Introduction to genetics if necessary.
For my work, as I said before, I write for doctors and scientists, and also for laymen such as cancer patients, social workers, environmental activists, and just interested people. Before I write, I try to talk to people in my target audience to get a sense of what they already understand and what they want to know. I was surprised to find out that even well-educated people don't understand simple concepts like "apoptosis" or "randomized controlled trial." I know by now that they don't understand a lot of the terms used in Genetics.
Some people write about biology and medicine in language that their readers absolutely must understand -- for example, textbooks, medical instructions and patient consent forms. They've done considerable research. When people write for the intelligent general public, they usually write on what in the U.S. is called 12th grade level, or senior high school. It's not Advanced Placement or A level, and it's not college freshman biology level. Here's a good example Merck Manual, Genetics of writing for the intelligent general public.
I have to make judgments about readability every day. I would say that Genetics is on at least the 14th grade level -- that is, more difficult than a good college freshman-level biology textbook (like Neil Campbell's Biology). It's more difficult than a news story in Science or a feature in New Scientist. I use Harrison's Internal Medicine as a reference, and I would say that Genetics is at least as difficult as Harrison's -- except that Harrison's is better edited. It's not Madeline's fault -- Harrison's is written by the leading researchers (often Nobel laureates), and edited by some of the best (and best-paid) medical editors in the business. It's difficult for a good scientist to write for people who aren't her peers. But Genetics is not understandable by the general reader, as Wikipedia rules require.
(If you don't believe me, run the Fleisch index -- or ask an art major to read it.)
Look at the lead: "Genetics, a discipline of biology, is the science of heredity and variation in living organisms. [It cites 2 sources I can't identify or check.] Knowledge of the inheritance of characteristics has been implicitly used since prehistoric times for improving crop plants and animals through selective breeding."
What does "variation" mean in this context? A lot of people wouldn't know. Nk.sheridan says, that's no problem, they can click on the Wikilink of any terms they don't understand. But if you click on variation, you wind up in an entry that is even more difficult for a 12th grade level reader to understand. I understand that you write "variation" to remind me that genetics is related to evolution, just as the New England Journal of Medicine does. For me, and any biology student, you're taking separate ideas that I already know and putting them together in a meaningful context, like bricks in a wall. It helps me to tie together the important ideas behind it all. That's what biology teachers do. That's good. But the general reader doesn't know those ideas already. You're introducing too many difficult terms and ideas in the introduction -- for a general reader. The general reader doesn't have the bricks yet. That's bad.
A high school science teacher couldn't tell his average-level students to look up Genetics on Wikipedia.
Now look at the lead in Introduction to genetics: "Genetics is the study of how living things receive common traits from previous generations. These traits are described by the genetic information carried by a molecule called DNA." That's a good, simple, direct sentence (in contrast to the compound sentence in Genetics). It doesn't have any unfamiliar words on the 12th grade level. The entire article is a simple explanation (appropriate for Wikipedia) of some important ideas that, in the Genetics article, the general reader couldn't easily understand. Best of all, it has a glossary. Biology students have a lot of problems with all those terms. What's an allele? Even the NEJM will sometimes define "allele." (Don't click on the Wikilink for an easy-to-understand explanation.)
Introduction to genetics looks as if it were written by a high school science teacher who understood how to explain genetics to ordinary people. Genetics looks as if it were written by a scientist who understood genetics very well, including some critical ideas, but threw out important ideas so fast and in such shorthand that a non-scientist can't follow them. That's not Madeline's fault; she's a scientist, not a high school teacher. High school teaching isn't as easy as it looks.
Let's compromise. Keep Genetics, tweak it a little to make it easier to understand, and keep it on a sophisticated, biology-major level (even though that strictly speaking violates Wikipedia rules). Keep Introduction to genetics so that ordinary people who come to Wikipedia for an introduction to genetics will have something they understand. Nbauman (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Did you even read the article? What is an allele? The Genetics article defines an allele when it gets to this term: In his experiments studying the trait for flower color, Mendel observed that the flowers of each pea plant were either purple or white—and never an intermediate between the two colors. These different, discrete versions of the same gene are called alleles. Maybe the information is dense when you shove it into an automatic evaluation, but the article is making a large effort to define each term as it comes to it. It does not have a glossary, because I was avoiding Wikipedia:NOTTEXTBOOK. You'll see that other terms are similarly defined as you get to them.
Your criticism that references are inaccessible is also unfair; most of the references in this article actually link back to textbook sections that you can click on, including many references into the Griffiths book. I've added a link for the first Griffiths citation, since you think it should have one; it didn't before because I was citing the entire textbook as a general reference for the article, per Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines.
I'm not making a vote yet on whether the intro to genetics should be kept, but I resent your cursory dismissal of the main article (one that looks like you may not have actually read it). Madeleine ✉ ✍ 17:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, while it's true that a normal encyclopedia would not contain such an article, normal encyclopedias also tend to have lighter main articles in the first place, both in terms of amount of content and depth. We could limit ourselves as such, and thus need only one article. Or, we could the depth of interesting material that we've got currently, and split off a simpler introduction article to ease laypeople into it (ie. the article in question). Considering that Wikipedia has (essentially) unlimited space for text, as well as an active community which consists of tens or hundreds of thousands of users, both of which are limitations for a normal encyclopedia (space required for an article and time devoted), I don't see why we don't simply go with the second option. Written properly it doesn't fail WP:V, and it's only borderline for WP:NOT - 206.126.163.20 (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, the article could be improved, but AfD isn't cleanup. No clear reason for deletion has been proposed beyond "I don't like/can't see the point of it". However, this is certainly a notable topic. As to introductory articles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination) for a general discussion of the utility of this class of articles. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Note, I've rewritten the introduction, but I'm hesitant to do too much work on the article if there is a chance that it will be deleted. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Introductory articles on certain technical topics of wide interest are acceptable on Wikipedia, judging from previous deletion and featured article nominations. --Itub (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a useful, laymen's intro to genetics. It's not perfect, and it could be improved, but it compliments the main article nicely. This is the kind of thing wikipedia needs more of, especially on technical science and mathematics pages lacking understandable LEADs, e.g. [43] (provided that these intros don't turn into POV forks and are kept relatively short). Yilloslime (t) 20:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: My problem with this is this: Wikipedia is not a textbook

Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects Wikibooks and Wikisource. Other kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.

The "How genes are inherited" section just added reads painfully like a textbook, with that extended example with cards. Same goes for the glossary.
When I go to Introduction to general relativity I see a fairly complex article. Go look at it! It's not nearly as "dumbed down" as this Introduction to genetics is -- if that "intro to" article is your ideal example, it is if anything showing a lack of need for Intro to Genetics -- it is nowhere near the textbook simplicity that the "Introduction to genetics" article is promoting. Same goes for the other articles. Take those "intro" articles as your standards for readability and reconsider whether you think Genetics is significantly more complex. It seems to me that any further simplification of the Genetics article results in a textbook. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 20:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
My fault I'm afraid, the cards analogy was a bit strained, I've rewritten this section to try to give it a bit more encyclopedic tone. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Much better ... I think the glossary is still problematic but I'm removing my delete because I don't want to be voting on this and am a bit conflicted about what should be done. I'm glad you're interested in working on it, I'm worried about making it into a textbook and consequently I have trouble figuring out what to say and whether it's possible to make this article significantly more accessible than the main one without creating a textbook. But I'll let others think about that. Thanks! -- Madeleine ✉ ✍ 21:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you can make it more accessible by removing some of the precision. For example in this article we can just say "genes encode proteins" but in the main genetics article we would need to say "Genes encode RNAs, many of which are translated into protein, but others function by themselves, such as rRNAs or tRNAs" Removing that kind of detail makes it easier for somebody who knows nothing about the area to grasp the principles involved. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that you have to remove some of the precision.
More significantly so does Francois Jacob:
I heard one of the prize winners, Professor Jacob, forewarn an audience of specialists more or less as follows: «In describing genetic mechanisms, there is a choice between being inexact and incomprehensible». In making this presentation, I shall try to be as inexact as conscience permits.
Nbauman (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. We've been through all these arguments before when Introduction to Evolution was up for FAC. As for not allowing anything that resembles a text book I'd say that is a case of IAR if ever I saw one. David D. (Talk) 17:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per TimVickers. No clear reason for deletion proposed. Introductory articles are helpful for the newcomer to a subject.--Sting au Buzz Me... 05:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The existence of an "introduction to" article is not automatically a bad thing, but I'm not sure whether Genetics is unavoidably so technical that it is the right solution in this case. See Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible#"Introduction to..." articles. My instinct is to lean towards keep where there is uncertainty, though. Kingdon (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Encyclopedia Britannica has 6 levels of articles in its portfolio. Wikipedia can have 3 levels for some subjects. It definitely is an advantage for the general public and for those who want to have more advanced technical articles to create this kind of article. It is not possible for one article to be all things to all people.--Filll (talk) 06:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. There is a well-established precedent for such introductory articles on WP, and they perform a useful function for technical subjects. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve both Genetics and Introduction to genetics. GoEThe (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve to minimize the "textbook" tone. Redundant content is not grounds for deletion when considering Introduction articles. It is suppose to be redundant. However, the Introduction version takes into account that many potential readers will lack the pre-request skills to decipher the main version and could benefit from one written with less detail and with less scientific vocabulary. The shear length of the main article would intimidate the average "non-science" reader. Of what value is the presentation of "facts" if the article is formulated in a way that is beyond the grasp of the average reader? Ideally we would tone down the main articles to eliminate the Doctoral thesis feel about them - since that will never happen - an introduction is a reasonable solution.--JimmyButler (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • As a comment, I'm re-writing this article to be an introduction to a broad range of related and more specialised main articles, including genetics, DNA, genome, mutation and molecular genetics. This should solve the problem of people not knowing enough of the general background to understand the detailed articles (see this comment on the DNA talkpage for example.) Tim Vickers (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and, by all means, improve. I would think that genetics is both sufficiently important and sufficiently complex to warrant an in-depth treatment in Genetics supplemented by a more accessible Introduction to Genetics. I'm all for making Wikipedia valuable to a general audience and to more specialized readers alike – it can and should be many things to many people. Markus Poessel (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • comment you can stop voting now... the article has changed dramatically since this was nominated for deletion and the consensus clearly seems to be "keep". Someone should close this. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 05:16, 16 May 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, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One-21

One-21 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band with no assertion of notability, fails WP:MUSIC notability criteria, no reliable sources Stormie (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Stormie (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I've had a pretty good look around. The name isn't helping, but I can't find anything substantial. The Band has never charted on the Christian Music charts, according to Billboard. The only possible argument I can see per WP:BAND is if someone wants to argue that the band's label is "one of the more important indie labels" but I can't find any evidence to support that either. Debate (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, I think you'd have trouble arguing that any of the labels that this band have been on are "one of the more important indie labels". Would not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as non notable per above.--Berig (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I couldn't find any info that shows that they're notable. — Wenli (reply here) 19:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing notable on this group sadly. Artene50 (talk) 02:21, 13 May 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. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Icarus Witch

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

Appear to fail WP:MUSIC. Two albums on a record label that is bluelinked, but it's a redirect and doesn't appear particularly notable itself. Black Kite 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page (a member of the band)

Steve Pollick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Kite (talk • contribs)

And I am also nominating their album:

Capture the Magic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 16:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Allmusic is a reliable source, and coupled with the other links provided, I believe this lot meets WP:BAND quite easily. sparkl!sm hey! 09:28, 12 May 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.