Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 May 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 15 May 17 >
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 and then redirect to soulmate.  Sandstein  20:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmic twin

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

No demonstration of notability at all: neither of the two external links provided makes any mention at all of the term "cosmic twin". The Anome (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - appears to be original research. Aleta Sing 03:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Aleta Sing 03:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to soulmate. The term is in use, or has been (I suspect it's in decline), but there aren't enough substantial sources about it for more than a mention in that article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, no sources. Redirect if appropriate. WillOakland (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like OR. -- Alexf42 03:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • redirect per Dhartung above. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:26, 20 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 redirected to parent article. ➨ REDVEЯS looks at danger and laughs his head off 11:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Breegulls

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

Unimportant element of a video game series. No merge is required. --- RockMFR 23:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable video game species; only one sentence is actually about the subject of the article, the rest is about some boss character that happens to be a Breegull. - Icewedge (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Many people search for this concept. Also I think that many people should know that it doesn't really exist. Also It can be a lot more better. I think a different tag should be put on suggesting to make the page longer. Like the tag that says the article is extremely short. It can be a lot better and I know it. I just need the help of other contributers. I know it wasn't you that put it up for the articles of deletion but I think doing this is a mistake. Normally I would not act this way. Normally I am fine when my page is deleted. I think that this article is a lot better than most other articles that I create. Also I think that many people want to know farther what a "breegull" is. I really think it should be taken off of the articles of deletion. Almost everyone that I know wanted to know more about breeguls. Me too!! I wanted to see what a real breegull looked like. Then after farther research I realized that it was only a creature in the Banjo-Kazooie and Viva Pinata universe. So I searched it here on Wikipedia. I figured out know such page existed so I decided to create the page for the better of Wikipedia. I highly suggest the tag be taken off by and admin. Thank You. (author)--Anfish (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete: It seems that the author wishes to delete the article, plus what JuJube, Stifle, Sgeureka and J.dalanoy said. תחי מדינת ישראל (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No I did not!!!!! Nevermind Just delete it. I don't like the page anyway. Go ahead tell an admin to delete it.>:(--Anfish (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Its me the author of the article. I have made a redirect on Breegulls. So now that the information is gone and now that it is a redirect the discussion over its deletion is over. Thank you all.--Anfish (talk) 21:03, 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 delete - a unanimous view. In addition there is an absence both of secondary sources and also of real world context. TerriersFan (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spells of Wizards of Waverly Place

Spells of Wizards of Waverly Place (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

No importance whatsoever. --- RockMFR 23:47, 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 speedily deleted per G7. Non-admin closure Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 05:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Banjo-Kazooie: Sky's the Limit

Banjo-Kazooie: Sky's the Limit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-existent game. No sources. --- RockMFR 23:45, 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 keep Given the presence of multiple sources, I withdraw this nomination. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Felpausch

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

The only sources I've found on this chain are a.) about its acquisition by Spartan Stores, or b.) about the closure of a store in Jackson. Neither of those seems to meet substantial third-party coverage, nor does anything else that I can find about this chain. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle Creek Enquirer. Story about Feldpausch brothers opening store, picture, etc.
Mlive.com. Here is the business story about the upcoming Spartan Stores buyout.
Allbusiness.com. Felpausch is focus of coverage regarding Tomax usage.
Lansing State Journal. Story regarding Felpausch conversion to a D&W.
Aglio.com. Lazard story about Spartan merger.
WLNS.com. Local coverage about store closure.
Reuters.com. Story about upcoming buyout.
There were a lot of other business websites carrying the buyout story, but many are redundant and probably not notable enough to list here. Tan | 39 17:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Tanthalas39 for digging these up. I knew Felpausch had a long history in south-central Michigan, but didn't want to weigh in here until I had a chance to see if there were any verifiable sources available. older ≠ wiser 17:50, 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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cordiem

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

This was tagged, validly, as an A7 speedy. However, on thinking about the fact that being formed by 9 major airlines and more, I thought we should have some checking done that this was not a minor, but nevertheless notable organisation while it existed. So here's an AfD. Splash - tk 23:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Has some article hits (e.g. [1]), but not many. Looks NN. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, minor folded organization, nothing more to see. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets WP:CORP. I have taken the liberty of adding some references that should establish WP:N. No problem finding independent sources on the company, even if it five years since it went down the drain. Also in the light of the large companies involved in the establishment - this is no small enterprise, even if it seemed to fail. Arsenikk 22:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Although no longer a viable company, it was historically notable by WP:CORP, it looks like to me. The added references make that clearer. Plvekamp (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The references added by Arsenikk are sufficient to show the article meets the notability guidelines.--Kubigula (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per the sources found and added by Arsenikk. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:49, 24 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  20:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joe cell

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

This appears to be nutso-tech. Rob Banzai (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:CB. Stifle (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Oh God, I can feel the will to live draining away as I contemplate this crap. OK. OK. I know that is not a valid reason to delete it. How about it a complete lack of any explanation of what it actually is, how it is meant to work or any reliable source references to enable us to verify any of this stuff. I mean, I could make up some vague, meaningless crap about stuff, decline to identify myself saying that the men in white coats are after me and then post links to crazy sites, but I wouldn't expect an entry in a serious encyclopaedia or to win the Nobel prize for physics for it. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As drivel. No proper references except to publicly-editable wikis with "hoax" articles. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Googling the book refs shows that they appear to be existing books (though possibly self published). G-hits turn up quite a bit, too. It looks to be a hoax device, but it might actually be attracting enough attention to pass WP:N. Simply put, the wide array of hits that google turns up (not the number, but the types of sites) makes it look like there is serious discussion about this thing. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment - There are plenty of high profile energy hoaxes out there. My concern is when the article presents it as uncontested fact when there appears to be no third party support. Rob Banzai (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense; if it did turn out to be notable, it would definitely need NPOVed. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless there is some evidence that at least those people who care about such things know about this. Books of this sort are presumed to be self-advertisements. Inventors such as out 'Australian inventor “Joe” who wishes to remain anonymous due to apparent harassment from armed men...' " makes a prima fascia case for something made up for the ignorant and credulous. DGG (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't make the grade, as per previous comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I think nom put it best. JuJube (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Send it back into the aether. Probable hoax with no sources to speak of. Nor is there any assertion of notability; articles with YouTube videos as sources make a little red light start blinking in my brain! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:36, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
    • Those blinking red lights in your brain are the Orgone energy! Klausness (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh, and Delete, since there's no evidence that this is a notable energy hoax. Klausness (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete "The evolution of the Joe cell resides in the present tense." The evolution of this article should reside in the past tense. JohnCD (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable drivel with no reliable sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Unsourced, non-notable pseudoscience. Edward321 (talk) 19:32, 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 - a clear consensus. Whether a hoax or a vanity piece by a profoundly nn individual, either way it fails WP:V. TerriersFan (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dwight McBannerson

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

Very likely a hoax. Only hit on Google for the name is this article. No hits for the award in the final paragraph. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • delete- appears to be fictional. Rob Banzai (talk) 22:45, 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. 22:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adnan Bensadok

I've been watching this, and I think it's a hoax. I can't find any evidence that this person (or his billionaire father) exists, and I also can't find any evidence that the "sources" (Swiss High Life Magazine, Emirates Business Weekly) exist either. FCSundae ∨☃ (talk) 22:28, 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. - Philippe 20:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jasmine Rouge

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

No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I think this is old blatant spam actually. Google the creator's username, and find a blog where the only post is a website ad. Pull up the old revisions and see a removed link to a porn site (I'd recommend you take my word on that one). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Delete, seems to be spam. No news or journal coverage of the subject. Celarnor Talk to me 20:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence of notability from reliable sources. Vinh1313 (talk) 18:23, 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 delete - a clear consensus. Probable hoax but in any case profoundly nn. TerriersFan (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My life as a Chickenface: A SGR Story

My life as a Chickenface: A SGR Story (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable album and likely a hoax. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 22:22, 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 Delete A7. Malinaccier (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Googlefight

Cute as this may be, it isn't notable. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as non-notable website. So tagged. Stifle (talk) 22:20, 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 page has been radically improved since its nomination. The addition of multiple sources, and evidence that the subject was inducted into the NAIA Track Coaches Hall of Fame, has produced a firm consensus amongst editors that the article should be kept. (Non-admin close.) Smile a While (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hoover J. Wright

Hoover J. Wright (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I speedy-deleted this page under CSD:A7 as there was no overt assertion of notability. After a discussion and a DRV supported by four editors (all from WikiProject College Football) I undeleted the page and am now listing it here.

I feel this article should be deleted for the following reasons:

  • The subject does not meet any part of WP:BIO
  • The team which he managed does not even have its own article
  • The article contains no citations from reliable sources, which are required under the verifiability policy
    • Note that cfbdatawarehouse.com cannot be considered a reliable source - it is merely a college football enthusiast site. I would expect to see news coverage or similar, secondary sources.
    • Note that pvamu.edu cannot be considered a reliable source as it is a primary source. See WP:SPS.

I have nominated most of the articles together but am separating this article as it claims that the coach is one of the four most successful that this team has had, therefore there is an extra chance that he is notable. In the interest of full disclosure I would ask members of WP:CFB to declare their membership when giving their opinion in this AFD. Stifle (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep per my comments in the main nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Deletion review is here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008 May 16#Head coach articles (closed) 23:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Browsing through Google, it seems that very few sources exist. I could find only one possibly appropriate source, which falls short of the requirements of WP:N. Jakew (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment NCAA? When Hoover Wright was the coach at Prairie View, they were in the NAIA. The NCAA would not have any records or statistics. But I enhanced the article a lot, would the New York Times and ESPN do?--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The NCAA may not have records or statistics about games, but this article isn't just about Prairie View. It's about a person. It's a biography. There are two absolutely basic facts that ought to be in any biography (well, one if the subject is alive): when the subject was born, and when they died. The NCAA page provides the answer to one of these questions. The question is: can the other question be answered? Jakew (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Confused So the New York Times and ESPN are NOT good enough sources for you?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I apologise for any confusion. NYT and ESPN are perfectly acceptable sources, but those sources contain only a passing mention of the subject of the article. Per WP:N#General notability guideline, I'm looking for sources with "significant coverage", and I don't see that. On the other hand, per WP:BIO#Basic criteria, a larger number of sources with less in-depth material may be acceptable. In my humble opinion, a good test of the overall availability of information is whether basic biographical data can be sourced. Jakew (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
            • On the "known birth date" issue: Lots of people have articles and no known or confirmed birth date. Many historical figures, sure, but Satchel Paige comes to mind in the sports world--an African American born around 1906 or 1907. Hoover Wright was an African American born sometime around 1929, and likely in the southern US. It's not unreasonable to assume that no public records are available on the internet for his birth date. Sure, the article would be enhanced if we have that--and I'll look for it--but not having a birth date shouldn't be grounds for deletion of a biographical article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
              • You're right: there are cases where such information isn't known, although the subject may be notable. Nevertheless, basic biographical data is often available, in the loose sense of the term. A good example is the article you mention, which has some in-depth information about the ambiguity of the birth date. In light of the recent changes to the article, I'm reconsidering my opinion of it. Jakew (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep if its a major college team its coach is notable. DGG (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep — Re:PaulMcDonald in Prarie View A&M Coaches. Precedent has been set with other articles. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Found many more sources and have enhanced article with new details and additional information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Most of the sources given only contain trivial mention. The only full-feature one that I can see is the enthusiast website, which generally aren't RS, since they're primary. Celarnor Talk to me 20:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per notability established in obituary. Member of NAIA Hall of Fame. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:Smashville membership in NAIA Hall of Fame would make him notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It's been over 5 days. I propose that the article be kept with a consensus of "keep" -- any objections or discussion?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:07, 21 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 keep - withdrawn. Stifle (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William J. Nicks

William J. Nicks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I speedy-deleted this page under CSD:A7 as there was no overt assertion of notability. After a discussion and a DRV supported by four editors (all from WikiProject College Football) I undeleted the page and am now listing it here.

I feel this article should be deleted for the following reasons:

  • The subject does not meet any part of WP:BIO
  • The team which he managed does not even have its own article
  • The article contains no citations from reliable sources, which are required under the verifiability policy
    • Note that cfbdatawarehouse.com cannot be considered a reliable source - it is merely a college football enthusiast site. I would expect to see news coverage or similar, secondary sources.
    • Note that pvamu.edu cannot be considered a reliable source as it is a primary source. See WP:SPS.

I have nominated most of the articles together but am separating this article as it claims that the coach is one of the four most successful that this team has had, therefore there is an extra chance that he is notable. In the interest of full disclosure I would ask members of WP:CFB to declare their membership when giving their opinion in this AFD. Stifle (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep per my comments in the main nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It has now been pointed out that this man was in the College Football Hall of Fame, therefore he is clearly notable and this AFD need not continue. Stifle (talk) 23:08, 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 per the Divine Right of Kings and the consensus of the Wikipedian minions to maintain the status quo. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sam B. Taylor

Sam B. Taylor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I speedy-deleted this page under CSD:A7 as there was no overt assertion of notability. After a discussion and a DRV supported by four editors (all from WikiProject College Football) I undeleted the page and am now listing it here.

I feel this article should be deleted for the following reasons:

  • The subject does not meet any part of WP:BIO
  • The team which he managed does not even have its own article
  • The article contains no citations from reliable sources, which are required under the verifiability policy
    • Note that cfbdatawarehouse.com cannot be considered a reliable source - it is merely a college football enthusiast site. I would expect to see news coverage or similar, secondary sources.
    • Note that pvamu.edu cannot be considered a reliable source as it is a primary source. See WP:SPS.

I have nominated most of the articles together but am separating this article as it claims that the coach is one of the four most successful that this team has had, therefore there is an extra chance that he is notable. In the interest of full disclosure I would ask members of WP:CFB to declare their membership when giving their opinion in this AFD. Stifle (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep per my comments in the main nom. VegaDark (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep — Re:PaulMcDonald in Prarie View A&M Coaches. Precedent has been set with other articles. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have improved the article with additional information and sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. First source is a trivial mention, second source contains a few trivial mentions (if there were more of these, it would probably be different, though still borderline), and the rest are just tables of data. Nothing to suggest he passes BIO or even general notability. Celarnor Talk to me 20:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The man last coached 46 years ago. I would wager a guess that there are a bunch of offline sources. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes WP:ATHLETE pretty straightforwardly. "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." --SmashvilleBONK! 21:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It's been over 5 days. I propose that the article be kept with a consensus of "keep" -- any objections or discussion?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:ATHLETE, as expressed by Smashville. Although online sources are fairly limited in their coverage of Taylor, the now-sourced information in the article is suggestive of notability and of adequate coverage in offline sources. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:31, 24 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 to me 23:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Pott

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

Serious questions over notability; lack of reliable or secondary sources mentioning this person. SynergyBlades (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm becoming a little swayed towards keep....two of the external links are primary sources, so I've discounted them, but the Global Gourmet article offers significant coverage, as does a WineX Magazine article (newly found on Google,now added to the article). Obviously a far cry from academic papers, but it indicates to me that Pott is notable in the wine world at least. He also got coverage in both USA Today [2] and news.com.au [3] for spraying his grapes with sunscreen (again not significant coverage, but may add to the debate!) I'll reserve judgement as to whether this is enough to keep the article, but would like to hear other editors thoughts. Paulbrock (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. As well as the sources mentioned by by Paulbrock the coverage at Google News indicates notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:57, 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 Snow/speedy deleted as hoax/nonsense. DGG (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zach Burroughs

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

Likely spoof article. The provided refs do not mention this person. I can't find any other evidence of his supposed achievements. And this page is an interesting piece of evidence.  —SMALLJIM  21:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete unless cleaned up with proper evidence of notability. Stifle (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with the nom that this looks like vanity due to the EL. Creator is an SPA. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Definitely a hoax. No references anywhere. In addition to the link provided by the nom[4], there is also this link[5] to the list of Clemson University Improvisational Comedy club, where he appears under "2005-2006 Season". Also the history log of the article, especially various anon IP edits to the "Personal Life" section, is quite telling. An undergraduate student trying to do some improvisational comedy on Wikipedia. Apparently succeeded for over a year since the article was created in March 2007. Nsk92 (talk) 10:31, 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 Speedy delete (funny though it was). Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Van Veldhoven Syndrome

Van Veldhoven Syndrome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a WP:HOAX. I can find no verification after searching PubMed and ScienceDirect for citations Nk.sheridan   Talk 21:32, 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.  Sandstein  06:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Animation Patterns

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

Original research, essay, something made up at Stockholm University one day. This is a proposal, not documentation of existing, verifiable, material. Corvus cornixtalk 21:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. An OR project, as explicitly stated in the article itself: "The idea is hence to use this WIkipedia page to define Animation Patterns together with peers." Nsk92 (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Another new one, but the reference doesn't check out. (It's on g-books, but no mention of "animation patterns" or "stockholm"; even searching for "patterns" finds nothing relevant.) Looks like WP:MADEUP. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete this isn't even an article. JuJube (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Indeed, this isn't an article; it's a template for some folks at a school to use to help one another. There's not even an assertion of importance here - Did someone speedy this? It certainly deserves it. Merenta (talk) 19:13, 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, at any rate not delete. Mergers can be discussed on the talk page.  Sandstein  06:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Rasberry

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

Mr Rasberry is known for only one thing; as part of his job as an exterminator he came across an infestation of an ant species (or subspecies; unclear), Paratrechina species near pubens, called by the name "Crazy Rasberry ant". He rightly gets a mention in the article on the ant population, but does not deserve an article on his own per Wikipedia:BIO#People notable only for one event and WP:NOT#NEWS. I redirected his article to the ant's, but was reverted. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment He's actually known for two things: discovering the ants, and being hired by NASA to help them with their ant problem. So, "one event" doesn't apply. Zagalejo^^^ 21:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, how about, "known only for the ants"? I don't buy it as making him notable. The sources are about the ants, so NOT#NEWS still applies. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep He not only discovered the ant in 2002, but was hired in 2008 by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for his expertise on them. Hence an expert in his chosen field per WP:BIO. -- Kendrick7talk 21:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not like they can interview the ants; NOT#NEWS. Coverage of him is not in depth, but relates to his job of spraying pesticides on the ants, so the coverage of him is "not significant" per WP:BIO's nutshell. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm uncertain why you think an article on someone who discovered a new species six years ago would fall under that policy, which covers things like tabloids, sporting events, wedding announcements, etc. NOT#NEWS doesn't mean we can't use recent sources. Like I said, getting hired by NASA to help where other experts failed puts him over the top for me. -- Kendrick7talk 21:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Phlegm Rooster.Elan26 (talk)Elan26 —Preceding comment was added at 22:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a news website. Article cites a date that does not yet exist. Stifle (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmmm Rasberry, we have an ant problem: Exterminator saves NASA from crazy ants does seem to have tomorrow's date. But hardly relevant, you are misunderstanding WP:NOT#NEWS, it doesn't say you can't use recently published sources. -- Kendrick7talk 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Everybody is clear on the facts; the dude noticed these crazy ants, and he was hired to kill them. People at TAMU think they are invasive. My argument is that's not enough. Some people disagree here, and that's fine. I'm not saying that he can't get mentioned on the ant page. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Ahem the facts as I see them: the dude discovers a new species of ants, devotes years of his life to their study, and saves the American space program from destruction. Seems enough to me. -- Kendrick7talk 22:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
          • It's not even certain it is a new species, and "saving the American space program" is an overstatement. Just let other people weigh in. The guy's contibution can be covered in the article on the ants, the articles completely duplicate the same info. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Dismissing him as just some random guy hired to kill some bugs is an understatement. I would again ask that you notify the user who created the article of the AfD, if for no other reason than WP:BITE. -- Kendrick7talk 23:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
            • If it can be merged to another article, then we don't need deletion tools. It seems like you just brought this article here because your redirect wouldn't stick. Zagalejo^^^ 23:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there some reason this has to be nominated when it's so new? And Zagalejo is right, if someone reverts your change to a redirect, AfDing it isn't the answer, it's a content dispute. Really- threating to delete the article if it's reverted, the first time you redirect it? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Or, I'm prescient. The reason the article is new is that the AP ran a story on the ants which got wide distribution. I found a newly created article on Paratrechina pubens and as fast as I could made redirects. Somebody rightly moved the article to Paratrechina species near pubens, but that left P. pubens as a redirect. I then built an article for them, because they might be a different species. So now we have three articles that say pretty much the same thing. Whenever something splashes on Yahoo's front page or wherever, well intentioned editors create articles for it. Some editors are more human-oriented than others, but I'll say it again; Rasberry's story is 100% tied to these ants, but the story of the ants is not 100% tied to him. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Uncertain lets see what more there is. DGG (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge I found the article searching for info on raspberry ants, and found it informative. A good compromise might be to merge it with the Rasberry ant article and then redirect, as he seems to be closely identified with the species, and vice versa. Syd (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes, he is notable. So are his ants! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep — The New York Times refers to him as the discoverer of the ants, and this article seems to lean toward the fact that they are a unique species. [6] JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Why not create an article on Jason Meyers, the graduate student at TAMU who studies the ants, and is mentioned in those articles too? He's given them their provisional name. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The article as it stands is paltry and deletion worthy. However, if it could be established that Raspberrry discovered tha ants in the sens that he recognized that they were different form other ants and took the initiative to bring the possibility of their being a new species to the scientific community, and if they are recognized as a unique apecies or subspecies , I would agree that he is worthy of an article. Or, for that matter, if he becomes a celebrity for it, if, of rexample, he gets gigs to do TV commercials fo rexterminating companies or be the guest speaker at exterminating conventions on the gorunds that he is a celebrity exterminator-cum-discoverer-of-new-species.Elan26 (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26
  • Merge per Syd. Sure the ants are notable, but his notability is completely based on theirs; nothing in his article which doesn't belong in theirs, is there? Cheers, Lindsay 07:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep if Elan26 removes the delete opinion. JeremyMcCracken's diff persuades me that this is a bad-faith nomination. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The man discovered a new species, for crying out loud. Plus, there's enough sourcing to justify his own article. --UsaSatsui (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • There are over one million species of insects, so I don't see discovering what might be a species so important. Thank's for the AGF comment, though. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable scientific discovery strongly suggests notability of the lead researcher participating in the discovery. The article as it stands now looks like crap and could use some expansion, but that's an argument for improvement, not deletion. Celarnor Talk to me 21:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The article was rewritten to emphasize Tom Rasberry as much as possible given the sourcing, and de-emphasize the ants and the work of the academics who also contributed to the ant infestation's discovery, tentative classification and control measures. If one searches around Wikipedia a bit, one will find that there are very few (or none, hard to say) articles on people who discovered just one species (which this population may or may not be). Also, fire ants get into electrical boxes too, just FYI. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I think it's a bit much to call this article "crap". It's sourced, and it's reasonably well-written, at least compared to many other articles. It's as good a stub as any. Zagalejo^^^ 04:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Multiple reliable and independent sources have substantial coverage of him as the discoveror and nemesis of a new and annoying species of insects. Satisfies WP:N and WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Paratrechina species near pubens but keep the article history. He is known for only one thing and a redirect is better for the encyclopedia than a separate short article. There is no reason to delete the history. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:12, 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep.  Sandstein  06:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Freer

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

I believe this person is non-notable. Problems have been caused with self-promotion on this page, and other referenced pages, with evident advertizing. ((note - comments here removed as per WP:BLP - see discussion below for details --  Chzz  ►  23:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC))) not WP:NOTABLE  Chzz  ►  21:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. There is plenty of newscoverage of him. GoogleNews returns 418 hits [7] (even if only a half of them are related to him, that'd be enough). the article includes a few solid references and there are lots more available from the above search, such as [8][9][10][11], and so on. Clearly passes WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not a biography. The article was more about Gizmondo than about this guy. After removing the information that didn't belong the bio, almost nothing is left. Unless a real bio can be created for this guy.... --Damiens.rf 21:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no requirement in WP:BIO for there to be specifically a biography or even a biographical article about him, and that is not how it is WP:BIO is typically used, especially for the BLP cases. WP:BIO explicitly says: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". There is lots of coverage here that is certainly non-trivial. Nsk92 (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I think a guy involved with a company with its own page, and with a career this, er, dramatic, can merit a page.Elan26 (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26
  • Delete - Google news hits are not relevant to meeting WP:BLP. Most articles that mention him are about Gizmondo the company, and mention Carl Freer in passing because he was CEO. There aren't many, if any, articles focused on him as the main subject. As Carl Freer is only notable for his involvement in Gizmondo, any material not in that article already can be Smerged there. Regarding the dramatic nature of his career, liability issues and reverts from certain interested editors that occur whenever someone tries to add something about those incidents prevent that aspect of his career from being represented here. Fugu Alienking (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Damiens.rf. Stifle (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Please be aware that the number of google hits is falsely inflated by self-published and questionable sources. --  Chzz  ►  22:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. After looking through the page's history and looking up more references I see some of what you guys were talking about. There seems to have been some POV pushing involved with this article and a fair amount of verifiable negative material is not represented in the article. E.g. the story about his about his gun-related arrest reported in the LA Times[12]. Some other news coverage is rather negative, such as this story in New York Times[13]. This sourced and verifiable info is currently not represented in the article which is certainly a problem. But I have to say, in view of all of this coverage, positive and negative, the argument that he is not notable seems rather disingenuous to me. There are POV pushing and balance issues with this article and some BLP problems as well. These may be good enough reasons to delete it, especially since this is a BLP article, I am not sure. But I would say that notability is not the real issue here. Nsk92 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Another negative story in LA Times[14]. Nsk92 (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Point of information. Why is this different from other biographical articles. Take a look at Jan T. Gross, a highly regarded historian, but some Polish chauvanists don't like what he writes about Polish persecution of Jews, and keep the page absurd. If you remove pages because they have a tendency to unbalance, many of the most interestign people on Wikipedia would disappear. It's a real problem, but deleting pages is not the fix.Elan26 (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Elan
  • Keep I think the Sunday Times story with the others now found makes enough for both notability and to support the article's negative statements. DGG (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Notability is marginal, at best. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly notable, even notorious, although the level of mystery remaining means it may be difficult to cover his business arrangements with adequate sourcing and NPOV. Nevertheless, he has received sufficient coverage even just as an executive for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - it's pretty marginal, and I have concerns about lasting notability - in five years' time, will anyone care who this guy is? But he seems to just about pass WP:BIO, for now at least. In future, merging into Gizmondo might be the better solution. Terraxos (talk) 15:38, 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. Maybe recreate once release date and title are confirmed by multiple reliable sources.  Sandstein  20:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Britney Spears Sixth Album

Britney Spears Sixth Album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a future album, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Article was brought to AfD once, decision was delete. TN‑X-Man 20:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per TenPoundHammer's law: if the title of an album isn't known, the page won't survive AfD. Maybe G4 as a repost too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll subscribe to that law. Suggest you list it at WP:LAWS. Oh, and delete. Stifle (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, not many reliable sources for this. --neonwhite user page talk 23:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per the law passed by TenPoundHammer and his otter congress. Come to think of it, haven't articles for this untitled upcoming Britney album been AfDed a few times in the past couple months? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - It has been. I wasn't sure how to list past debates, but if anyone knows how, please feel free. Also, if you could let me know how for future reference? Thanks in advance. TN‑X-Man 01:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:10LB.HAMMERSLAW and the curse of the "Sophomore-Untitled-Upcoming-It'll be here one day, Srsy! Album Article". Nate • (chatter) 01:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per mindboggling obviousness of it all. JuJube (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per TenPoundHammer's Law. This article will be re-created when the time comes. But the time hasn't come yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. We don't even know that this is going to happen for sure. At this point, it is essentially CRYSTAL material. Celarnor Talk to me 21:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article has Billboard cited as a source. TWO producers confirmations are there, too. It shouldn't be deleted since it's projected for a release THIS year. Mazenation —Preceding comment was added at 02:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - it will get more sources over time, but it has some now CloversMallRat (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - If the producers have confirmed it, then it shouldn't be deleted. TheLeftorium (talk) 13.19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - if it isn't deleted can a decision be made as to the proper name for the article and that decision be stuck with. For instance it seems to exist as Britney Spears Sixth Album, Britney Spears's Sixth Album, Britney Spears' Sixth Album, Britney Spears's sixth album, etc. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
A few days ago I moved it to "Britney Spears's sixth studio album", as that was the naming convention that was decided upon as to what to call Blackout (Britney Spears album)'s article, before the album title was known.
  • Keep - Billboard has confirmed it, as well as two producers. It's possible that Jive Records could have also confirmed it. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 21:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep because the information contained is notable and it appears likely that the album will be released. Everyking (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Britney always changes her album release dates. Nothing official has been confirmed. You need more facts and more substance for a future release. Soapfan06 (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:CRYSTAL + prior deletions. - eo (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - References worthless until more concrete information is available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.70.226 (talk) 19:29, 21 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, as to do anything else would be process wonkery. Stifle (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ruck Shack

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

Non notable song, fails WP:MUSIC - exempt from CSD A7. Booglamay (talk) 20:39, 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 X2 - no establishment of notability. WilyD 15:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Garcia

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

Subject is non-notable. Local school "Emmys" do not constitute significant awards. Appears to be vanity autobio by Samuelgarciafilm (talk · contribs), who has no edits outside of these two articles. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Also nominating the related article:

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Rochelle (Zip-Code Areas), New York

New Rochelle (Zip-Code Areas), New York (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a redundant article about a subject (zip code areas within a city) that is not obviously of encyclopedic merit. This is the only article that I can find focused on the zip code areas of a specific U.S. city. Only one of the three names given in the article for specific zip code areas is recognized by the US Postal Service as an alternate name for the zip code area (the other neighborhood names look like original research). That one named area is Wykagyl, which is the subject of its own separate article that includes some of the same content as this article. The focus of the article is on census data, but zip codes are not a basic unit for presenting demographic data. The Zip-Code Tabulation Areas used in this article as a basis for data presentation are not primary units for Census data collection but are approximations; if someone wants to know about specific neighborhoods within the city, they could work with data for census tracts or block groups, which are the units that the Census reports. The New Rochelle, New York article presents data for the places described in the article. If there is a perceived need to discuss the zip code areas of New Rochelle, the content of this article should be merged into that one, but I think that deletion of the article would be more sensible. Orlady (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs) ((are a new statistical entity developed by the United States Census Bureau for tabulating summary statistics from Census 2000. This new entity was developed to overcome the difficulties in precisely defining the land area covered by each ZIP Code. Defining the extent of an area is necessary in order to accurately tabulate census data for that area. ZCTAs are generalized area representations of United States Postal Service (USPS) ZIP Code service areas. Simply put, each one is built by aggregating the Census 2000 blocks, whose addresses use a given ZIP Code, into a ZCTA which gets that ZIP Code assigned as its ZCTA code. They represent the majority USPS five-digit ZIP Code found in a given area)). Census data as collected and organized according to zip-code is the common source of information listed in the 'demographics' section of wikipedia town/city articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.2.128.106 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC) — 210.2.128.106 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. NOTE: additional tag inserted by Orlady reflects the opinion of user, DOES NOT reflect Wiki policy or guidelines (see WP:ESSAYS, WP:EANP, WP:NOTPOLICY ) 210.2.128.106 is the author of the "NOTE" prior to this one, and similar ones elsewhere on this page.
  • Delete The point of the article may be to show, with statistics, the differences between three sections of New Rochelle, New York. This is one of those occasions where WP:STAT would apply, since it seems to be a stream of statistics that don't show much in particular. The "Castle" area has a smaller percentage of white people than "Wykagl", I get that, but zip code areas are among the more arbitrary geographical definitions in existence. Perhaps the author can reorganize this into a table rather than the straight narrative, and make that part of the article about the city. Mandsford (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
"Demographics" sections of other municipalities typically consist of data from census zip-code assessments. The significant demographic differences found within this particular city arent so easily seen when looking at census measurements for the city as a whole. The breakdown between its three zip-codes helps paint a clearer picture of the substantial socio-economic disparity and ethic/racial differences between city residents, by enabling the reader to contrast information. This page might have been created to avoid making the main article too lengthy(?) Possibly this article should be renamed and a new introduction written to more accurately define its purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.74.196.214 (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC) — 64.74.196.214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. NOTE: additional tag inserted by Orlady reflects the opinion of user, DOES NOT reflect Wiki policy or guidelines (see WP:ESSAYS, WP:EANP, WP:NOTPOLICY )
  • Delete Non-notable subject. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is not about zip-codes per se, its about the different sections in a city. To the extent that it isn't original research, its notable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Now Delete. I made the three areas in the city into seperate articles, making this article obsolete. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Did you find a reliable source documenting the names of the zip code areas for which you made articles? (I don't see a source cited in your new articles.) As far as I could tell, the zip-code area names "Castle" and "South Side" were original research. --Orlady (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I just copy and pasted it from this article. The ref provided looked legit, so I didn't even bother checking it. Now that I googled it without getting any hits I suspect that there might be some OR going on. Mea maxima culpa. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If there is anything of value, move it to New Rochelle (if it is not already there).Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • As it happens, User:Brewcrewer has created two new articles from sections of this article (see above) and a brand-new registered user has copied the contents of the article into New Rochelle, New York, so now all of this material is replicated in three different places. --Orlady (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Zip-code information is frequently used to guage the racial,ethnic and or economic diversity of a specific area, such as in this case. Minor rewording to the lead of the page might help clarify its overall purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.74.196.214 (talk • contribs) — 64.74.196.214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. NOTE: additional tag inserted by Orlady reflects the opinion of user, DOES NOT reflect Wiki policy or guidelines (see WP:ESSAYS, WP:EANP, WP:NOTPOLICY )
  • Keep information has reference value and is helpful and infomative. Deletion request should be removed so that page can be imrpoved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.19.111 (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC) — 123.237.19.111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. NOTE: additional tag inserted by Orlady reflects the opinion of user, DOES NOT reflect Wiki policy or guidelines (see WP:ESSAYS, WP:EANP, WP:NOTPOLICY )
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor the USPS. Stifle (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    please read the article--if it contained only the sip codes and the boundaries, you'd be right--and I almost made exactly the same mistake when going just by the title.DGG (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    I had read it already, although the USPS comment probably isn't relevant. Still violates WP:IINFO. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • keep and retitle as Neighborhood of New Rochelle. Its a good combination article. We need it more clearly understood that while eachneighborhood probably should not have an article, a combination one like this is the way to do it. DGG (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is the wrong way to go about writing an article on New Rochelle neighborhoods. Zip code boundaries change all the time (I just got flipped from one into another a couple of years back). Zip codes do have data compiled on them, but are very rarely written about as such (yes, exceptions abound, but these prove the rule). Neighborhood names remain the same over long periods of time and are often written about in reliable sources. Write about those neighborhoods, or a list of those neighborhoods, rather than presenting a prose interface to the U.S. Census Bureau data. --Dhartung | Talk 06:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Discussion at Talk:Wykagyl, New York#Wykagyl, New York and zip code 10804 are not the same indicates that there is no basis for equating Wykagyl with zip code 10804. This is apparently based on the personal knowledge of the contributors to the discussion (who are well-established registered users who have not yet contributed to this AfD). Their comments are consistent with the observation that there are no sources for the names used in the article for the other two zip codes. --Orlady (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Wykagyl/10804/New Rochelle zip-code areas - The argument from prior a user (( This article is currently referring to Wykagyl, New York and the zip code 10804 as being the same, which is not correct. Until this edit on May 11, the article correctly stated: "It shares the 10804 zip code with the greater "North End," yet is independently served by the 'Wykagyl Station' branch of the post office." BlueAzure (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC))) is not accurate, both in its initial claim and in its assertion of the 'correct' facts. There needs to be an understanding where/what Wykagyl is.
    A According to the (FIPS) Class Code Definitions, 'Wykagyl, New York' falls under: Class U[Communities (Populated Places Not Associated with Facilities] (Specifically Class U4 [Identifies a populated place wholly or substantially within the boundaries of an incorporated place with a different name]. The community of Wykagyl is within the boundaries of the incorporated city of New Rochelle. It is located in the northern portion of the city. All of 'Wykagyl' is covered by the 10804 zip-code. The Wykagyl Station Post Office makes a clear reference to its location in its name.
    B Also discussed by an earlier user, ("Mail addressed to people in that area can be addressed to "Wykagyl, NY," even though Wykagyl is just a section of New Rochelle). The USPS site lists 'wykagyl' as an acceptable mailing alternative to 'New Rochelle' when sending mail to 10804. New Rochelle includes three zip codes, served from 2 post offices. Two zip-codes (10801, 10805) are served out of the main post office .The main post office handles the greatest number of households in New Rochelle, serving 10801 and 10805 as well as the 10802 zip-code for P.O. boxes. The other post office within the city is ‘Wykagyl Station Post Office’, serving (10804) 'independently' of the main city branch. This means that mail can be sent to addresses in 10804 either using Wykagyl or New Rochelle as the mailing address. When sent using new rochelle, the mail processes at the main post office before being sent over to Wykagyl Station for final distribution. When sent using Wykagyl, the mail goes directly to Wykagyl Station for distribution. (conversely, out-going mail from 10804/Wykagyl is processed and sent out from the Wykagyl Station Post Office ).
    C The statement ("It shares the 10804 zip code with the greater 'North End') is false. The "North End" of the city is not served by one just one zip-code. The northernmost section of New Rochelle (the northern portion of the "North End") is under the "10583" zip-code of scarsdale town/village (Wilmot, Wilmot Woods). Portions of the "North End" also fall under the "10538" zip-code of neighboring Larchmont village (Larchmont Woods). Additionally, several "North End" areas are are under the "10801" zip-code which covers much of the citys mid-section and downtown area. Correctly understood, not all of the "North End" is part of Wykagyl or a part of the 10804 zipcode. All of 'Wykagyl', however, is covered by that zip-code.
    D Lastly, the census associates the zip-code areas of New Rochelle with the following names: 10801 as “Castle” , 10805 as “South Side”, 10804 "Wykagyl". The first two names are used only by the census, most likely created for organizational/ reference purposes, since neither has an alternative name associated with them other than New Rochelle. Wykagyl is also used by the census, yet is a pre-existing alternative name for the 10804 zip-code within New Rochelle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.240.212.17 (talk)
  • Delete I do have some ambivalence about this, I think what pushed me into the "delete" column was the realization that two of the three areas in the article aren't really recognized "areas" as such, they're nothing more than zip codes, established for nothing more than the convenience of the USPS for delivering mail. (I wasn't aware of that fact until I read the various discussions that are taking place around this issue, BTW, so I'd have to say that this discussion has been most edifying, and I'm grateful to all who are participating.) So if this is really an article about zip codes and nothing more, the question is: Should Wikipedia include articles about every zip code in the United State? Because if we keep this article, that's the road we're heading down. And that's where I'm ambivalent, because I'm not sure that that would be such a bad thing. But I tend to feel that adding thousands of zip-code articles would not be especially useful or enlightening, which is why I'm coning down on the "delete" side. HMishkoff (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Snowball delete. There is no evidence presented that these postal ZIP codes are notable. The article is redundant and filled with trivia. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 22 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 into Lenton, Nottingham. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kimbolton Avenue, Nottingham

Kimbolton Avenue, Nottingham (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable - a couple of disputed newspaper allegations in 2006 are not enough. At most it should have a mention in Lenton, Nottingham.  —SMALLJIM  20:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep From what I've seen, there are some partly notable aspects. I've found several related links on Google, some of which seem pretty reliable. The article, while not near perfect, has some sources, Wikilinks, images and such. I'd don't see any reason to delete it. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Lenton, Nottingham. Doesn't look notable enough for seperate article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge not notable enough for a separate article. Only claim of notability is based on disputed statistics that appeared in newspapers in 2006; no significant lasting notability; sourced information can be added to the Lenton, Nottingham article. --Snigbrook (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge per Brewcrewer. Stifle (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:19, 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 (non-admin closure), consensus. - Icewedge (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leningrad Cowboys Go America album

Leningrad Cowboys Go America album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album, fails WP:MUSIC. ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 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. John254 01:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Window dressing

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

Seems little more than random sets of originally-researched definitions. Anything particularly useful should be transwiki-ed there to its wiktionary entry, and this entry deleted. ZimZalaBim talk 19:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Amended nomination to include link to the wiktionary entry, which I meant to do originally. --ZimZalaBim talk 23:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Note I have removed the more blatant original research from the article. The version described by ZimZalaBim can still be found here. Whatever the outcome of this AfD discussion, the removed material should not be replaced unless it can be properly sourced Gwernol 12:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, valid terminology. Stifle (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete the article is a set of dictionary definitions with examples, and lacks encyclopedic content; also it only cites one source, which is a dictionary. --Snigbrook (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep now the original research has been removed. The discussion here suggests it can be expanded; if not expanded it can be merged into other articles. --Snigbrook (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems like more could be written on this topic, even though it hasn't happened yet. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand with a fuller discussion and more in the way of sourcing. But it's already more than Wiktionary. DGG (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Reads like a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The section about supposedly misleading conduct by fund managers seems to be using the article as a coatrack. Other than that, the article is an extended dictionary definition. EALacey (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. The article doesn't look too bad now. A merge with display window might be a good idea, but that can be handled outside AFD. EALacey (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I imagine that the article and its sourcing could be improved if given time. At this point, its already more than wiktionary, so I don't think DICDEF is relevant. Celarnor Talk to me 21:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Although needs more references, it could get some. The little of it I wrote has a reliable published source. Wictionary requires sources also. The original reasearch rule is: Wikipedia:No original research.--Chuck (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten, would like to see this improved further ala WP:HEY. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:15, 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 speedy delete - repost of deleted material. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blaspheming The Holy Spirit

Blaspheming The Holy Spirit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a long religious tract. I'm having trouble seeing how this is encyclopedic content and not just a regurgitation of religious doctrine. Rob Banzai (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:OR. Note: was thrice speedily deleted as Blaspheming Against The Holy Spirit. Ros0709 (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I thought it sounded familiar. Rob Banzai (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research, essay, non-neutral, you name it. Maybe break out the salt shaker as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not encyclopedic, Definitely an essay, recreating deleted material WikiZorro 19:23, 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 delete under criteria A7. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Privatevoyeur.com

Privatevoyeur.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another porn site that makes no effort to assert notability. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - notability not established or even asserted. Might even be a candidate for WP:CSD#G11.  Frank  |  talk  20:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete self-promotional advertising ~ Ameliorate U T @ 22:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:34, 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 23:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chimoio Arena

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

Appears to be a hoax; see related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aves Chimoio. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agree with the nominator: either a hoax or completely unnotable. Only 10 Ghits[15], none of which pass WP:RS. Fails WP:V and WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, after running a web search, I found no notable evidence that it exists. Most likely a hoax. WikiZorro 19:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't pass V, let alone N. No sources at all to indicate even the existence of the subject. Celarnor Talk to me 21:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Looks like in 2005 at least there were plans for a large football arena in Chimoio[16]. Not sure if anything came of it -- I'll keep looking.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:32, 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 Delete --JForget 23:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wireless art

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


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of world leaders at the funeral of Yitzhak Rabin

List of world leaders at the funeral of Yitzhak Rabin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

First, it's trivia and a violation of WP:IINFO. (Plus, the respective article already has a good list of the key people in attendance.) Second, it's unreferenced. And third, what's a "world leader"? Some of the entries here - Mongolian Ambassador to Egypt, Fijian Interior Minister, Judd Gregg - hardly seem to fit the bill. Biruitorul (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Funerals of world leaders are routinely attended by world leaders, and Wikipedia is not a directory of such appearances. --Dhartung | Talk 20:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:OR, uncited, and generally tabloidish.  Frank  |  talk  20:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - I understand the logic behind the article, since the funeral brought an uncommonly large number of delegations to Israel (including countries with no previous overt diplomatic relations). But, unfortunately, it doesn't seem to fit here. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, first of all, just about everything on Wikipedia is trivia and there's no policy against trivia. This list isn't a violation of WP:IINFO. Much of this list could be merged into Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin#Reactions and funeral if this list is deemed to be too long. Since editors should endeavor to preserve information, and a merge would be plausible, deletion is not an issue. I'm sure you could find references for most of these people, starting by consulting the references in the Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin#Reactions and funeral section. The phrase "world leaders" in the title can be modified. I suggest the list be kept and a merge discussion started. Were there any political motivations behind this nomination? --Pixelface (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
No, why would you ask if there's a political motivation? And: actually, see WP:TRIVIA - saying that "just about everything on Wikipedia is trivia" is quite incorrect. Look at this month's FAs - no trivia there. Biruitorul (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I asked because you have several political userboxes on your userpage and this article is related to a politician. I appreciate your answer. And WP:TRIVIA applies to trivia sections in articles, there isn't a policy against trivia. And I stand by my statement that just about everything on Wikipedia is trivia. While this month's featured articles look nice, they are also full of trivia. --Pixelface (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I can appreciate Pix's cynicism about Wikipedia, but there actually is a policy against trivia sections. There's no requirement that articles must be dull, and although trivia should be interesting, not everything that is interesting should be considered trivial. Mandsford (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Could you link to that policy? --Pixelface (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't see any way that this would avoid deletion, so I urge the author ot save it to his/her hard drive. I imagine that the point of this may have been to demonstrate the "importance" that various nations accorded to the existence of the nation of Israel, or at least how they felt in 1995 (author mentioned everything except when the funeral was). This would have some significance, perhaps, regarding which Arab nations sent delegations to Israel, and whether other nations sent their head of government, head of state, foreign minister, dogcatcher, whatever. However, a "guest list" is the wrong way to convey that type of information. This could probably be reduced to a paragraph in an article about Rabin, or about Israel in 1995, or something else. Mandsford (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trivial and unreferenced. The main article already establshes that there were a lot of notable world-leaders at his funeral. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete unreferenced and it would be terrible if everyone who died was given a page listing attendees, however there is a possibility that in the future someone would like to have the information at hand, such as for a school project or similar ~ Ameliorate U T @ 22:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:IINFO. Stifle (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as trivial, unsourced, unencyclopedic, and apathy-inducing. I mean, half of these people are redlinked, and most of them aren't "world leaders" by any but the loosest definition (US Senators and Egyptian energy ministers don't really count) --UsaSatsui (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per nom, unsourced. Ostap 02:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This was a very important event, and the list of those present is an interesting indicator of the state of international political relations.--Poetlister (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • However, define "world leaders". Biruitorul (talk) 16:23, 21 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 If in doubt, do nowt. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 16 @ War

16 @ War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable recent (and first) single from some less-known artist's debut-album. Damiens.rf 18:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Redirect and Merge per Ten Pound Hammer, but also redirect the article 16 @ War to Karina (R&B singer). ≈Alessandro ♫ T • C 04:30, 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 Delete --JForget 23:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atletico Maputo

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

That team don't exist.. you can see in [19] and [20]. That team is not listed in any level of Mozambique football leagues —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calapez (talk • contribs) 2008/05/16 15:24:58


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While existence has been shown, notability has not. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aves Chimoio

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

That team don't exist.. you can see in [21] and [22]. That team is not listed in any level of Mozambique football leagues —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calapez (talk • contribs) 2008/05/16 15:24:44

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems like it did exist at some point; it's listed here and here. There's nothing in Google news, but I wouldn't expect to see much there for a team like this. Zagalejo^^^ 18:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's absolutely nothing to be found anywhere for Chimoio Arena, and the refs in Aves Chimoio either don't exist or don't say anything about this team. I dunno... Zagalejo^^^ 18:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, how about notability then? Nsk92 (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • delete Non-notable. -- Alexf42 11:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Neier. GiantSnowman 18:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but what about satisfying WP:N? Nsk92 (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete even if the mentioned website was a reliable source for the results, it isn't so for an article about the team and the information only shows existence but nothing that would amount to competing beyond regional or second level leagues. Let me also note that that we do not only discuss the original nomination reason here.Tikiwont (talk) 18:38, 24 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 but please add sources to the article. Will add the tag as a result. --JForget 23:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In/Humanity

In/Humanity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Insufficient notability Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - an influential power violence band (one of the original). They released an album and best-of compilation on Prank Records, a larger independent punk label of the 90s. They also released a slew of EPs and appeared on many classic 90s compilations. Members also went on to form Guyana Punchline. BeastmasterGeneral 17:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. There seems to be some kind of a technical problem with this AfD. Which article is actually being nominated? Surely, not Humanity? The disambiguation page Humanity (disambiguation) does not seem to help as none of the items is a musical band. What is going on? Nsk92 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I've also updated the header. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:18, 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 23:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sporting Clube Ressano Garcia

Sporting Clube Ressano Garcia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

That team don't exist.. you can see in [23] and [24]. That team is not listed in any level of Mozambique football leagues —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calapez (talk • contribs) 2008/05/16 15:27:31

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax. Manager: José Mourinho? (yeah right). It does not even exist in Moçambola. -- Alexf42 11:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 18:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as it's an obvious hoax. The 67 year-old ex-Mozambiquian president listed as one of their players gave it away. --Jimbo[online] 19:54, 21 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 23:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eljay

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

This article has been around since December of 2006 but it never makes any real claim to notability as far as I can see. (He's been "up-and-coming" for a year and a half now?) Google search for the album name "Old Enuff 2 Vote" only gets 24 results. Cosprings had placed a speedy tag on it, but I figured to bring it here instead to get a consensus. ... discospinster talk 17:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete No objections to delete at this time, but keep if article improved and WP:N established. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No sources to show that he passes WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO or WP:N at this time. Nsk92 (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete obviously written by the subject, non-notable. I hate people who write their own articles as bragging advertising. Cosprings (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • delete notability not established in the article doesn't pass WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO or WP:N as far as I can see. Would prefer that Lukerat88 doesn't linkspam the article but, perhaps he'd point the rest of us to the assertion of notability in the article per the relevant policies. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hello,

As the artist in question, I would like to let you know that I have just been signed to Geffen Records, with my first major release scheduled for January 2009. In the meantime, if my notability is in question, I will post links on the page to the various interviews, movies, and clips that I am featured prominently in. Thank you. Lukerat88 (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't prove that; what links have you posted?Cosprings (talk) 01:46, 20 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Braye beach hotel

Braye beach hotel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable hotel, article appears to be solely promotional. Polly (Parrot) 17:37, 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.  Sandstein  19:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technology in the classroom

Technology in the classroom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, so lets go to a formal discussion. Wikipedia is not a place to publish essays, which is what this page is. Wikipedia is not Myspace, it cannot publish unsourced original research, and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. J.delanoygabsadds 17:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. The subject itself would probably might make a suitable article, but in it's current form, better to bin and start again. Unreferenced/Original research. Paulbrock (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As Paul said the article may be a good idea for a subject but not in its surrent form. Kaloo (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not a proper article. ... discospinster talk 18:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - we haven't given it much time, but it is clearly going to be an OR essay, not an encyclopedia article. When it first appeared, it was headed "Technology in the Classroom (CTL1799 Earth Team Project)", raising in my mind the spectre of another Global Economics debacle. I have asked the author whether this is a class project, and if so who is in charge, so that they can be pointed to useful advice and guidelines; but no reply so far. JohnCD (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have tracked down "CTL1799" - it is a course at the University of Toronto. I have looked around its website, and it does not seem that the students are told to use Wikipedia for their project papers; so with luck this is a one-off. JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A WP:OR essay. If there is a valid concept for an article somewhere behind this, it should first be developed in a user sandbox. Nsk92 (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete under WP:NOT a notepad. WillOakland (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Stifle (talk)
  • Delete not an article. Ditch this trash. JuJube (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Obviously an OR Essay. Deathawk (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • delete as above Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:14, 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 --JForget 23:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Airborne March

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

Seems to be promotional material of a local event, without assertion of notability. (speedy delete was declined, and PROD notice removed without comment). ZimZalaBim talk 17:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - as presently written, provides no evidence whatsoever of notability, no sourcing, advertising/advocacy tone. S.P.A. author claims this is a bigger thing on the Dutch Wikipedia; is it any better sourced there? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep A long-standing event that has taken place every year for over sixty years and is attended by over 30,000 nationals from two countries, that commemorates one of the most famous battles of the Second World War, the Battle of Arnhem (who hasn't seen the film, A Bridge Too Far?). It has some independent sources and a couple of primary ones. Could it be better sourced? Yes. Does it need to be rewritten? Yes. But these are reasons to edit not to delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice to a proper encyclopedic article being written. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Netherlands and to WikiProject Military history. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep rewrite. The current version of the article shows the notability of this march, by virtue of being pivotal in the annual remembrances of Market Garden, as demonstrated by the references. AecisBrievenbus 23:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. AecisBrievenbus 00:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep rewrite Remove promotional nature and it still is a notable commemmoration of a notable battle (Market Garden). Arnoutf (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep rewrite See Aecis. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Thanks for all efforts to keep the article. All items in the article are proven (historic) data, as mentioned in my talk page, under To Malcolmx15. If there is anything wrong in the article, tell me exactly what is, so I can alter it. I am a Wikipedia 'newbee' so help me out here.--Annerobe (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep rewrite See Aecis and Malcolmxl5. Ekki01 (talk) 09:16, 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, disregarding numerical consensus. Yes, the topic has a "notable" feel to it, but that is not the problem. The problem is that it is not clear from either the article or this discussion that a verifiable article can be written about this topic. As WillOakland points out, the article has no sources and that means we can't be sure that the term "i686" actually means what the article says it means. Various Google searches are also unhelpful in finding a reliable source for the meaning of this term, so I'll have to delete it until someone writes an article that has references to reliable sources.  Sandstein  19:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] i686

AfDs for this article:
    I686 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Basically a list that can include every Intel processor since the Pentium Pro, and every AMD processor since the Athlon. As new processors are released, this list will continue to grow without stopping. Basically every processor today supports i686 instructions. ANDROS1337 17:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment I see where you're going with this, and ordinarily I reject Google as a measurement of most anything, but Results 1 - 10 of about 8,510,000 for i686. (0.08 seconds) suggests that we should be able to WP:HEY and improve this one. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, this article is simply way too broad. There is already an Intel P6 article, which is more specific, referring the the family of processors to first use i686 instructions. While i786 is sometimes used for the NetBurst processors (i.e. Pentium 4), it is not commonly recognized, and most of the time it is still treated as i686. The same is true for the Intel Core Microarchitecture. ANDROS1337 17:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Speedy keep If "every processor today supports" this instruction set, then it's a notable instruction set. Go ahead and edit out the list of processors, but keep (and expand) the intro paragraph---for example, Andros, everything you just said (first used in P6, 786 treated as 686, etc.) is non-obvious, encyclopedic info that belongs in the article. Bm gub (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • So, why don't we have articles on i386, i486, and i586? i386 instructions are supported by all x86 processors starting with the Intel 80386. ANDROS1337 21:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • An argument of WP:OTHERSTUFF (doesn't) exist, surely? Paulbrock (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Actually, there are articles for each of those things---each one is an appropriate redirect. If i686 really is a synonym for P6, then i686 should redirect there. But it really is a common term, one I've encountered dozens of times (in compiler flags, etc.), and shouldn't be deleted outright. Bm gub (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Redirect, it was a slang term for the P6 and trying to associate it with anything else is original research. WillOakland (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak delete Criteria is sketchy at best. Title is poor and doesnt explain much. It claims to be an 'unofficial name' and has no sources. --neonwhite user page talk 23:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    Keep - It's a common term, so the article is useful. If it's too broad, make it a disambig page - which it almost is now, anyway. --Chriswaterguy talk 05:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep or merge - this is a notable name for a CPU instruction set/architecture. Note that things like i386, i486, etc. have different instruction sets and programs compiled for an later archs may not run on earlier ones. This article certainly could be improved and merging into Intel P6 might be the way to go, but I think it is an ok stub right now. Wrs1864 (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - very well known term. A bad article doesn't automatically mean it should be deleted. -Halo (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep in some form, even if just as a redirect, as this is a very common term, and a plausible link and search target. No need to push the delete button on this one. I'm not going to comment on whether it should be a redirect or a list/article, but AfD is not needed for that discussion. --Itub (talk) 08:49, 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 delete.  Sandstein  06:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Seoul Peace Declaration

    Seoul Peace Declaration (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable. Not mentioned in secondary sources. (Although the goals of the declaration are admirable.) Borock (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    The article does not even say why it is interesting or important to us members. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 00:42, 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 keep.  Sandstein  19:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] List of clocks

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

    Contested Prod -

    • Rationale for deletion = per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, there is no special criteria for inclusion in this list other then being a clock, there is no more reason to have a list of clocks there there is to have a List of shoes
    • Rational for keep = the inclusion criterion the implied one for all lists that items should be notable, and this is a valid navigational list

    AFD by Jeepday (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Speedy Keep the nomination includes a rationale to keep. Since we should not delete in cases of doubt, the AFD falls at the first hurdle. AFD is not a place to generally review articles which have merit, such as this. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Speedy keep we're not mind readers; no rationale for deletion has been provided. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Needs a lead that defines the scope, which should be clocks notable enough to have articles. With that, definite keep -- meets the criteria of WP:LIST just fine. (And yes it does do things a category couldn't: sort by region.) —Quasirandom (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      My caveat has been met: unambiguous keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep and rename List of notable clocks. This list complements Category:Clocks. --Pixelface (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete I hate to contradict the previous commentators, but this article is wildly incomplete, highly subjective and, quite frankly, non-encyclopedic. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Save the clock tower article! Thirty years ago, lightning struck that clock tower article and it hasn't run since! I would consider this to be a list of landmarks that happen to have clocks on them, such as "Big Ben", and I think that's encyclopedic. To some extent, what constitutes a landmark is subjective, so it should be limited to those clocks that have articles about them. To that extent, I'd rather the article stay "wildly" incomplete. Mandsford (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • But I need a nuclear reaction to generate the 1.21 jiggawatts of electricity I need! Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per Ecoleetage. Stifle (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep define the scope and edit accordinglyDGG (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - article specifies that it is for notable clocks only. It is a useful list. Aleta Sing 04:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete as it is plain trivia. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep as list of notable clock. The inclusion criterion is that the clocks should be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. --Itub (talk) 08:47, 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. The "keep" arguments are, frankly, poor; therefore no clear "keep" consensus.  Sandstein  19:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Welsh Wikipedia

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

    Also nominating the following page for the same reasons:

    Tajik Wikipedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Withdrawing additional nomination - although I think the same issues affect both pages the contributors to the debate are largely concentrating on the title page and none concern the additional page alone. Guest9999 (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    The pages show no evidence that the topics have been the subject of significant coverage by independent, reliable sources as required by the primary notability criteria. There is also no evidence that the topics meet the specific criteria for web pages unless simply being distributed by Wikimedia makes something notable. Guest9999 (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete both, notability is not inherited. Stifle (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom, or as a second choice delete and redirect to List of Wikipedias. Being a Wikimedia project is not an inherent claim to notability, and no independent sources have been provided, nor could I find any. There are multiple precedents to not keep articles like this, such as the Scots, Kashubian, Inuktitut, and Tibetan Wikipedias. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep, I think... I don't understand Welsh, but googling for "Cymraeg wikipedia" gives more hits than "Welsh wikipedia", so I suspect that there may be Welsh-language references to be found. It would be helpful if we could get a Welsh speaker to look at this and either add some references (if they exist) or tell ust that there aren't any good references to be found. Looking at Meta:List of Wikipedias, it appears that the Welsh wikipedia is five times as big as the largest wikipedia listed by Metropolitan90 as a precedent (Scots) and ten times as large as the largest one listed that uses what's generally accepted as being a distinct language language (Kashubian -- Scots is generally considered to be a dialect of English rather than a distinct language, and even Kashubian is considered by some to be a dialect of Polish), so I'm not sure that it's entirely fair to compare to those. Still, in the end it comes down to reliable sources, but I think we should let someone who can evaluate Welsh sources weigh in on that before we delete. Klausness (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. My sort-of-"Keep" above is for the Welsh wikipedia. Since the Tajik wikipedia is smaller and significantly less active, I suspect that it doesn't meet the notability requirement. Klausness (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. There are 100 articles in the Wikipedias by language category, including several dozen much smaller than the cy. (currently on 15,000+ articles and growing daily). My question is, why are they "notable" but cy. apparently is not? With comparatively few websites entirely in Welsh, the Welsh wikipedia is important to Welsh culture on-line and, like the rest of the wikipedias, has great potential as an educational resource. Why this hurry to delete this when articles on much smaller language wikipedias seem perfectly acceptable? As for notability, try googling Welsh topics (avoiding English) and you'll see how often cy. comes up. I would go so far as to say that the coverage of Wales is more extensive than on en. Online references will be found, but mostly in blogs and discussion sites, mainly because Welsh-language websites are relatively few in number. Wikipedia is far bigger than just en., even if it's the largest single language wiki. Time to be less parochial? Enaidmawr (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Additional comment: I notice that articles on three other Celtic language wikis, viz the [Irish (5,424 articles), Scottish Gaelic (4,333) and Cornish (1,333), all seem to be perfectly acceptable, although they are just stubs. So I ask again, why delete Welsh wikipedia? Enaidmawr (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Addendum: It also has interwiki links to seven other language wikipedias, including Spanish and Japanese. They seem to find it perfectly acceptable and I see no sign of it being proposed for deletion on those sites. But apparently it's not good enough for inclusion here, even though we have stub articles aplenty on minor anime characters from forgotten TV series, third division Norwegian soccer referees, etc. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't know whether those other Wikipedias have equivalents to WP:WEB (other than the Czech Wikipedia, which does have an equivalent, but I can't read it). But looking at the Czech, Polish, Serbo-Croatian, Spanish, and Turkish articles about the Welsh Wikipedia, it's obvious that they don't have any independent sources either. (That's understandable given that such sources, if they exist, are probably in either English or Welsh.) The fact that an article exists in another Wikipedia does not mean that their editors have specifically taken an interest in whether that article is acceptable to them; maybe they just haven't gotten around to deleting it yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I've expanded the article and added references. It's not perfect, perhaps, but it's a start. Please take a look at it and kindly reconsider. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. I do not think we should delete articles on wikipedias in languages other than English unless we have a clear assurance from fluent speakers of the language that they have searched hard and found no sources in the language. I am inclined to keep them with a rather lower notability criteria than normal as wikipedia is an obvious place for someone to search to see if there is a wikipedia in a given language (OK a more knowledgeable person might search meta, but many people do not even know meta exists). So, I say keep. --Bduke (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. I think that the absence of sources comes from the fact that only Welsh media and publications have talked about it. Eklipse (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. I've read about the Wicipedia in Golwg and in Y Fanner Newydd, but as both these publications are in Welsh and have limited on-line presence, it's very difficult to provide refrences. As Eklipse mentions, it's unlilkely to be mentioned in English language press. While refrences are iimportant, this highlihgt how the Wikipedia (the English version) could become an encyclopedia of only things that are in''''Bold text'Bold text' Enlgish. --Rhyswynne (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • While English-language references are preferred in the English Wikipedia, foreign-language references are fine if no comparable English-language references are available. And they don't need to be accessible on line in either case. So if you have Welsh-language references from reliable sources (even if they aren't on line), please add them to the article. Klausness (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - if the National Library of Wales considers the site of enough importance to appear on their site as an e-resource at [25] then there must be something to it. Thaf (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - not because it's a wikipedia project, or because "stuff exists", but because it's important in the context of the Welsh language and having an article about it ensures that non-Welsh speakers can be kept informed. I think its value as an article will gradually become apparent. Deb (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - in case it's relevant, it may be worth pointing out that several of the above users (Enaidmawr, Rhyswynne, Thaf, Deb) are major contributors to the Welsh wikipedia. Hope this doesn't constitute a conflict of interest; better to point it out gently now before somebody screams about it. My own feeling about the article is a bit mixed, even though I too have an interest in the project. I reckon that probably there is not enough to establish sufficient notability in its current form, although there may well be if the external references alluded to above (Golwg, y Faner Newydd) were tracked down and added to the article. But then neither would I favour keeping stub articles on minor anime characters (per Enaidmawr's comment). — Alan✉ 12:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    Further comment: Just been thinking about user Bduke's comment that "I am inclined to keep them with a rather lower notability criteria than normal as wikipedia is an obvious place for someone to search to see if there is a wikipedia in a given language". The main page already has a section devoted to Wikipedia editions in other languages, with direct links to the more major ones, and a link to a complete list. If there is more that we can do to increase visibility from within project namespace, then yes, great, I'm all for it. But I still think it's important to apply notability criteria consistently as regards article namespace, and frankly I think that Wikipedia is already generally too lenient as regards mention of Wikimedia projects in article space, notwithstanding user Enaidmawr's comment that it is also too lenient as regards a lot of other trivia. — Alan✉ 18:33, 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 merge to Xenogears#Plot. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Xenogears Perfect Works

    Xenogears Perfect Works (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I split this from the main Xenogears article a long time ago, but there hasn't been any improvement in terms of establishing notability and importance. This is simply the description of a long fictional and in-universe timeline taken from a video game guide. I think the article should either be deleted or redirected to Xenogears (redirected, not merged). Kariteh (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Kariteh (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Kariteh (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd be in favor of a merge, as Perfect Works still has valuable information for the legendarily deep, complex and above all obscure plot of Xenogears. --Kizor 17:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Looks like a good candidate for compressing down then merge into the plot section of Xenogears. Ancillary material for a game that has not acheived (nor seems to have the potential to) independent notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete - But merge anything valuable first. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge - As someone who's played the game, the plot information is such that anybody interested in the game will want that information. It definitely doesn't deserve an article, and it certainly doesn't need to be this long, but it shouldn't be simply deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Napsterbater (talk • contribs) 05:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete There's not much of value to even merge here. Unnecessary detail in violation of WP:PLOT policy, and otherwise non notable in violation of WP:N. Randomran (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete - There is already lengthy coverage of the plot at Xenogears#Plot. No objection to a merge if it can be done without severely bloating the target article with minor plot details. Also delete {{Xenogears}}. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:59, 24 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. WP:VERIFY is a non-negotiable policy and this article fails it. If suitable sources are found, then the article can be re-created. Ty 02:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Robert E. Hawkins (photographer)

    Robert E. Hawkins (photographer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article is very brief and contains mostly unsourced information. Such as "believed to be born in NY" and "what happened to his large collection of photographs he took". If he was famous like a Henry Talbot lets say people would have known what pictures he took and where they were. This article seems to be about a man who took random pictures in Cleveland for himself. Doesn't seem notable. The address on the bottom of the article seems tacky as well. UWMSports (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • delete There simply is not enough information about his accomplishments. What companies have his photos in their collections? It is possible that his collection is missing. That does happen (happened to a lot of artists killed during WWII for example), but normally there would be more information about why the collection vanished. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC))
    • Delete. Much unverified data in the article. No independent reliable sources to indicate notability per WP:BIO (I did a bit of Google searching but did not find anything relevant). Nsk92 (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. It's very nice that ClevelandMemory.org is making these photos accessible, but appearance on non-notable website does not grant someone notability. There seem to be no sources presented or even available. Fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 20:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. The #1 Google hit for 'Robert E Hawkins photographer' is this Wikipedia article, which is never a good sign. As it stands, the article is not very helpful to our readers, since it has so little information, and most of what there is is unsourced. EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep The Cleveland Memory Project: Virtual Cleveland History is an online gallery of images at Cleveland State University. It displays more than 450 of Hawkins' photographs. I think we can accept that Hawkins was a photographer given that his photographs are in the special collections of a university. Anything else that's controversial and unsupported can be removed from the article without deleting it. Fg2 (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    I don't think anyone is questioning the fact that he was a photographer. The issue is notability, as required by WP:N or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    His work is in the special collection of a university museum. I think that establishes it. Fg2 (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    No, it doesn't. Read the WP:N and WP:BIO guidelines. To be notable, the subject needs to be sufficiently widely covered in substantial detail by independent sources. Having one's work exhibited in a single local museum is certainly not enough. Nsk92 (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete - I've taken pictures of different landmarks and I'm far from notable. Article is poorly written with no real sources and I agree with the nominator. The address is really lame. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - If no one else chimes in on this within the next couple hours I propose a speedy delete due to the overwhelming vote toward delete. -UWMSports (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Very Strong Keep - Robert E. Hawkins photographs are available online, sold on other sites like ebay and are very well known in archive circles. I researched him with the help of a Cleveland State University archivist. He is very noteable. This needs to stay on wikipedia. In all honesty in all my years of using wikipedia, this is the strongest I have felt about an entry needing to stay on wikipedia. Please consider this when you choose to keep or delete the article. --Josh (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    It is also worth noting that he was one of the main photographers of the Cleveland Tower City during its construction and his photos of that are very much saught after by archivists. I ask that before a decision is made that someone knowledgable in the field weighs in on the topic. --Josh (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Then offer a plan to expand the article and make it noteworthy. The article is terrible right now and makes it seem like the photographer is not notable at all. -UWMSports (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Exactly. All these are general WP:IKNOWIT and WP:ILIKEIT arguments that are not worth much without supporting evidence. You need present verifiable evidence from reliable sources, per WP:V and WP:RS, to back up these claims. Nsk92 (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Just in case, I did an Ebay search with zero hits[26]. You say that his photographs are available online. Where exactly? The only place I could find is the EL given in the article[27]. Is there anything else? Nsk92 (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    First off, he didn't go by Robert E. Hawkins, he went by R.E. Hawkins. Also I was unable to find the pictures on eBay at this moment as well. They honestly were on there this fall when I created the articles, they were in a shop section, more than one of them actually. --SportsMaster (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Please note this, from a book. [28] For sale [29]--SportsMaster (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - Again, Josh, what's your plan? Just because he took some pictures that are being sold as postcards doesn't make him notable. Millions of photographers and videographers create work but aren't notable. --UWMSports (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak keep for historical interest, but more sources would be nice. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 22 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. Waggers (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Greenmachine

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

    Insufficient notability Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:40, 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 delete g1 nonsense, g3 vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Smather

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

    Protologism. Does not match WP:RS, WP:V, or WP:NEO. asenine say what? 16:37, 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. Satisfies the guidelines specified in WP:MUSIC. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Asbestosdeath

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

    Insufficient notability Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Keep - the band released an EP on Profane Existence (which has since become the most collectable 7" on that label). In addition, they have had a compilation 10"/CD come out on Southern Lord Records, a large indie metal/rock label. The band later changed members and morphed into Sleep, a HIGHLY influencial band with albums on Earache Records, Music Cartel, and Tee Pee Records. Members later went on to Om and High on Fire, a highly influencial and popular band on Relapse Records BeastmasterGeneral 17:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - as has been noted, this band was the first incarnation of Sleep, a hugely influential stoner doom band. Members of Asbestosdeath and Sleep later went on to form Om and High on Fire, which have also gained considerable followings. ___Superfopp (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. Article makes clear assertions of notability; band exceeds WP:MUSIC. Current lack of reliable sources is not a valid rationale for deletion. Chubbles (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete There are and have been a gazillion bands. No indication this one was notable. Edison (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep per BeastmasterGeneral. --Bardin (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete - No proof that it satisfies the Wikipedia:MUSIC guideline, this band might be known in some cicles and yet fail the Wikipedia:MUSIC guideline.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 06:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment The band doesn't fail WP:MUSIC; several editors have pointed out that it passes the guidelines. I'm not sure why this is a matter of contention. Chubbles (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep per WP:MUSIC: the band "has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" and "contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • DeleteWeak keep Fails both WP:N and WP:V because it doesn't have any Reliable Sources. Also, contrary to the beliefs of others above, this fails WP:MUSIC. Razorflame 21:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • My mistake. I have fixed my above vote to reflect that. Cheers, Razorflame 23:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for checking back. Still, WP:MUSIC is the relevant notability guideline for musical groups... (To be honest, I've never really been in favour of the existence of the subject-specific notability guidelines, but they do exist.) –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I know that WP:MUSIC is the relevant notability guideline, but with having the article not have any reliable sources, then wouldn't it not be notable because if an article is unsourced, then wouldn't it fail WP:N? Just a thought, Razorflame 23:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Present lack of reliable sources is not a valid rationale for deletion; plently of clearly notable subjects have extant articles with no sources. The solution is to add sources, not delete the article. Chubbles (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I've changed my vote to weak keep in light of what you just posted. Cheers, Razorflame 02:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I've added several sources to the article. So far, I've added mostly sources to support existing content, but the sources could also be used to expand the article. –Black Falcon (Talk) 02:38, 25 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 02:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Paul Chain

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

    Insufficient notability Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Keep - Paul Chain has had an extensive solo career and is well known in the metal community. He was also a founding member of Death SS, a band that is one of the earliest black metal bands, a scene that has exploded since. BeastmasterGeneral 17:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite any reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete Lacks reliable and independent sources to show notability. Being "in a band" or "releasing records" is not sufficient proof of notability. Edison (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep According to Rockdetector, "Paul Chain’s prolific output both as an artist and for his much sought production skills has landed him the coveted position of Italian Doomeister’." That indicates enough notability to me. --Bardin (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete - I am unconvinced about the secondary sources. In my view they are insufficient to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete No WP:RS means no WP:V and no WP:N. Razorflame 21:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per WP:MUSIC, the sources provided by the article don't prove that he is notable.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 02:51, 25 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). A consensus exists that this band is notable and verifiable. Darkspots (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Thor (band)

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

    Insufficient notability Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    This is incorrect; the article currently cites two RS's. Chubbles (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep per BeastmasterGeneral. Easily passes notability criteria with their two albums on Roadrunner Records. --Bardin (talk) 11:23, 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 (non-admin closure), nearly unanimous keep sentiment. - Icewedge (talk) 05:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Unorthodox (band)

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

    Insufficient notability Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:28, 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. Fails the notability guideline specified in WP:MUSIC through the lack of verifiable sources. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Gorgon (band)

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

    Insufficient notability Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Keep - the band is Japanese and doesn't have a whole lot of US press but is known in the Metal community. They have a large amount of singles and some splits with Sabbat, another well known (in the metal community) Japanese band. BeastmasterGeneral 17:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    There is no article about the band on Japanese Wikipedia. --DAJF (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete I was not able to find much mention of them in English. They have not released any full length studio albums despite being in existence since 1995. Seems to be too underground to merit a place on wikipedia. No prejudice if someone can provide sources in Japanese per the request of Chubbles. --Bardin (talk) 11:43, 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 (non-admin closure) The argument below that is based on policy is that the subject passes WP:MUSIC because of the multiple releases on a notable-enough label. Darkspots (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Wretched (doom band)

    Wretched (doom band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Insufficient notability Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Keep - the band has 3 releases in Hellhound Records, a fair sized independent metal label (at that time) and one that would be credited with helping define doom metal. They have numerous connections to other bands in the Maryland doom scene, including Spirit Caravan and Earthride. BeastmasterGeneral 17:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      Note - If Hellhound can be counted as "one of the more important indie label (which I believe it does since it was instrumental in defining doom metal in the 90s) than they pass Wikipedia:Notability (music) c5. They also appear to pass c6. BeastmasterGeneral 22:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per the Myspace test. Stifle (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - as has been noted, this article passes the relevant notability guidelines and the band were a part of the highly important Maryland doom scene. Also, the "Myspace test" is not a proper method of determining notability. ___Superfopp (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      It's a good indicator though. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep as passing WP:MUSIC. That "MySpace test" is outdated and should be canned; plenty of charting artists and high-profile indie bands are using MySpace as their primary method of exposure. Chubbles (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep per BeastmasterGeneral. --Bardin (talk) 11:47, 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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW. howcheng {chat} 22:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Vons and other chains owned by Safeway Inc.

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

    Doesn't appear to meet notablity requirements, suggest merge with Safeway article. — DædαlusT@lk / Improve 16:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason as above. Note, any admins, users, please reformat as needed.— DædαlusT@lk / Improve 16:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    Casa Ley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
    Tom Thumb Food & Pharmacy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
    Simon David (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
    Randall's Food Markets (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
    Pavilions (supermarket) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
    Genuardi's (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
    Dominick's (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
    Carrs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
    • Keep all These are major businesses about which readers might want to find some information. It doesn't matter who owns them. Borock (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment This isn't about who owns them, it's about whether they are notable or not. The only information listed in the articles is a basic history of the stores, the only notable thing I have been able to find is the company that bought all of them out, specifically, the banning of a certain type of plastic bag they used.— DædαlusT@lk / Improve 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep all I'm finding sources such as this, this, and this just for Vons alone. The information contained in each article seems like it could easily be sourced — lack of sources alone is no reason to delete. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep all, they're owned by Safeway, Inc. That's notability enough. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note, No, it isn't, notablity is not transferable.— DædαlusT@lk / Improve 19:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • keep all per all above commentsOo7565 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep most names are very notable regional grocery chains, sources can be added. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep all. Just to cite one example, Dominick's, is well-referenced. At best this is a merger proposal, which does not require AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 20:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep all Different brands, different histories, all which could never be merged into the Safeway article and should not just because one company owns them all. Nate • (chatter) 20:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep all most are very notable regional grocery chains. -- Nsaum75 (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep per above. I don't know why some people think that businesses, particularly chains of supermarkets, restaurants, etc. are automatically non-notable. Wikipedia's notability requirements accommodate a wide variety of interests, whether one likes Pokemon toys or large employers. Mandsford (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep and Immediate Close. Also consider warning the nominator not to make AfDs of clearly notable things. Bstone (talk) 22:10, 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. John254 01:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Iron Man (band)

    Iron Man (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Insufficient notability Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:21, 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 band has one notable album (the criteria is usually two, but); there is source coverage.

    [edit] The Want (NJ band)

    The Want (NJ band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Notability Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:20, 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 per WP:OR; the topic is covered; a redirect is unnecessary because a non-notable neologism is not a plausible search term. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Room matching equalization

    Room matching equalization (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Topic is amply covered by Digital room correction and Room acoustics. Binksternet (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. As per the nom, this topic is already covered. I would say redirect, but I suspect that this phrase will not be used. (3 hits for the exact phrase on google) Wrs1864 (talk)
    • Delete per Wrs1864. I don't think that a redirect is needed, since the phrase is a virtually unused neologism and unlikely search term. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:29, 24 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. Secondary coverage includes VH1 and MTV. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] From Satellite

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

    Band does not appear to meet WP:NMG. Also, article lacks third-party sources. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 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 no consensus to delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Cast of Characters vs. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen lawsuit

    Cast of Characters vs. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen lawsuit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Badly sourced, fails notability, huge BLP issues, in short if we can find any reliable info it should be merged into The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Keep This article has been the target of an attempt to gut and leave it open to an AfD. It seems two sockpuppets of the same banned user (User:MyVeryEducatedMother and User:TuppenceABag) have been busy removing material that is also being removed in the real-world (as noted by Rich Johnston over at Comic Book Resources [30]). It is unclear if this is a coordinated effort but the timing seems curious. I have been discussing the issue of sourcing with ntnon but it might take longer than the length of this AfD to track down resources and I'd not like to see this article get deleted in the meantime - surely that would be handing a victory to those attempting to use underhand means to destroy an article? (Emperor (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC))
      • Comment Victory? Destroy? Curious timing? I don't see the appropriateness of any of these phrases. This is a simple afd of an article that is highly controversial, because of BLP and the obvious legal issues, and poorly sourced, so its, IMO, a good candidate for afd. Please don't imply it was afd'd for ulterior motives as that would be assuming bad faith on my part. Having said the which, I am certainly aware of the issues involved,a nd obvioulsy do not support the use of controversial socks by Col Scott. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment My comments were directed to the activities of the sock puppets, not yourself. The AfD was almost inevitable given the state the article was left in, which is why I had been working to try and address the sourcing issues (given that a lot of the good sources are outside my area of expertise) before someone AfDed it (and if it wasn't you then it would have been someone else, and sooner rather than later). (Emperor (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC))
          • Thanks for clarifying that. I will add that I have seen poor articles transformed into good ones by an afd, which to some extent could be said to either make or break an article, and especially one such as this. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Indeed and it does need it. As the finding of the sources is out of my area of expertise I'm also hoping that the extra attention catches the eye of someone more experienced in finding legal information. As lawyers were involved there must be a paper trail and there must be editors around here who know where to look. Even if this survives this AfD, without those sources will have to be trimmed back further which leave it of a size were it'd probably be best merging to the film article. Whichever way it falls out something needs doing. (Emperor (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC))
              • OK I have only just got up to speed on the User:ColScott situation (and my comments above should be read in that light as I was unaware of the connections between the various parties, showing that there was no coincidence between the removal of comments elsewhere and the double sock puppet editing of the entry) but I am unsure what bearing this has on the AfD (and by extension the long-term viability of the information as a standalone article), whether it becomes a strong keep pending the finding of further sources to replace those removed (as we can't let people game the system) or if we just let it go (as it is going to be a "scab" that is going to be picked at for the foreseeable future). (Emperor (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC))
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • There are sourcing issues though. Both the allegations and the rebuttals section need sourcing. Who is making these allegations and who is rebutting them, us? I've added in some sourcing for removed material, but I think this is better covered in the film article and the Alan Moore article. To me it looks like there was a lawsuit and it was settled. I'm no expert, but I think that's common practise in America. Hiding T 18:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Also, I'm not really clear on ColScott or what their issue is, either but a lot of the edits the alleged socks have made look to be in keeping with policy. Hiding T 18:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • That is not surprising. The socks got blocked for evading the original block. Col often edits in a high quality way with a good knowledge of polices such as BLP, RS etc. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep the Refimprove tag is enough. Must be a slow day for the deletionists. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. To summarize the lawsuit in the main article on the movie is proper, but this daughter article can present more information, at a level of detail that would be clutter in the main article. The current setup is consistent with Wikipedia:Summary style. This article has proper sourcing for indications that this lawsuit was of some interest and importance, establishing its notability. JamesMLane t c 03:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete- the only sources are message boards. Article has no citations and no back up. Deserves at best one paragraph mention in main article. One of the worst articles I have ever seen.PersecutionComplex (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Care to explain your assertion that the only sources are message boards? Seems to conflict with the evidence, for example the New York Times and the BBC. Hiding T 15:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The only sources are message boards and pieces in the NY Times that don't actually support what is quoted. Keep Hiding. PersecutionComplex (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
          • To my mind the NY Times certainly supports the statements made using it as a source. The piece states "When the case was settled out of court, Mr. Moore took it as an especially bitter blow, believing that he had been denied the chance to exonerate himself." I believe this wholly supports the statement within the article that the case was ultimately settled out-of-court, a decision which Moore, according to the New York Times "took ... as an especially bitter blow, believing that he had been denied the chance to exonerate himself." Why do you not agree? Hiding T 16:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Ah, so that clarifies that it is basically a plagiarized line and should be deleted or reworked- in any case GREAT JOB cleaning the article up- and now as it is it should DEFINITELY be deleted.PersecutionComplex (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Actually, given the BLP issues, it probably was wise that an exact quote was used—as the quotation marks noted. —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
              • It's not plagiarism when you quote and cite a source. It is plaigarism when you seek to pass off someone else's work as your own. This is not something I am seeking to do, as evinced through citation and quotation. Hiding T 16:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
                • Yes but WP is not just a news clipping service and that is all this article is. And you keep trying to add gossip sites as a source. PEOPLE is not a WP sourcePersecutionComplex (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • I was unaware of the nature of PEOPLE, I apologise for adding it to the article, but I do not keep trying to add it to the article, I have added it once, to my knowledge. I have replaced it with a quotation from the BBC. Whether this article should be kept or not is for editorial consensus generated at this debate. While it is here it should not contain speculation, original research or the like, but should be edited in keeping with our editing policy. Hiding T 16:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • and you are doing a helluva job in doing so.PersecutionComplex (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
                      • Well, based on where we have the article now I'd simply merge it into The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (film), but given we have an afd underway we can't as yet do that. I think if we did that we could make even more material redundant. Hiding T 17:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
                      • For example, the Shane West quote likely is redundant to this article. But both this article, by which I mean the facts regarding the lawsuit, and that quote are relevant to the film article. I'd suggest they both belong there. Hiding T 17:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
                        • I would agree. No one seems to care about this AfD though.PersecutionComplex (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
                          • Perhaps it needs listing on law project or film project pages. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
                            • well there is really nothing left of it and should be amalgamated into the main article.IMO.PersecutionComplex (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
                            • I meant the afd should be listed elsewhere. Obviously, as the nominator, I agree with you about what to do with this article. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
                              • I have added the film del sort and created a law del sort which I will advertise at Wikipedia:WikiProject Law. Hope that helps. Hiding T 19:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • People is a superficial celebrity-oriented magazine, but something like this (a dispute involving celebrities) is within its beat. It's not the kind of rag that publishes stories about three-headed children or encounters with space aliens. The linked story is chiefly a summary of the allegations of the lawsuit, and I'd consider it a reliable source in that context. JamesMLane t c 18:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
                      • first off, this week the front page of People has fotos it paid for of Ashlee Simpson's wedding. It is a tabloid rag and an unsuitable source. Second this is not a dispute among celebrities- this is one guy so not notable he doesn't get an article and a fringe/cult old director suing a studio. No celebrities are involved at all. Third, see below- this case is meaningless in law.PersecutionComplex (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
                        • The issue isn't whether People is in line for a Pulitzer, or whether we approve of its journalistic methods. The issue is whether it's reliable -- whether the statements in it are likely to be true. Paid-for pics are a bad example because we couldn't use them, but suppose People reported: "Joe Jones, who catered Simpson's wedding, said that Carol Burnett was there and offered some of her dessert to Henry Kissinger"? If for some reason that fact were encyclopedic, I'd consider People a reliable source (that Jones actually catered the wedding and actually does say that). Second, this article is on the entertainment beat where People concentrates. Third, that the case was settled before generating any published decision that would show up on Westlaw means it set no precedent for other cases, but that's quite different from "meaningless". It's still meaningful as to its particular subject matter. See, for example, Le Rêve (painting), an article that discusses a lawsuit settlement without citing any published decision. JamesMLane t c 06:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete The Phrase "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" does not exist in American case law. Similarly, the phrases "Martin Poll" and "Larry Cohen" taken together do not exist in American case law per Westlaw.com. This means that the lawsuit has no lasting significance in American jurisprudence. Given that this suit would have been filed five years ago, it is either settled or it has been dismissed, but even that court action is not notable. Unless "Cast of Characters" is also the name of a corporation, it cannot sue anyone or anything, so the name of the article is wrong. The only notability of the article is that it has to do with a famous movie. There are thousands of lawsuits out there that do not get their own article, even those worth millions. It seems proper to merge this article into the movie article. As far as its legal significance, it has none. Legis Nuntius (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The significance and notability are surely in how it relates to Alan Moore, since the accusation played a large part in his decision to extricate himself utterly from film-adaptations of his work. ntnon (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, but that can be dealt with at Moore's own article, it simply is not an argument for a separate article. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • even based on your original superfluous OR, it actually played only a small part- the major part was Joel Silver's press conferencePersecutionComplex (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
        • True. I should have written "while it's absolutely correct to say that the Silver press conference was the final straw, this instance was clearly the tipping point." Allegations of plagiarism, illegal and immoral conduct involved in the writing of an original work are far more damaging in the short and long term than the suggestion of having read and enjoyed a treatment based on ones original work. But parts of the original article did arguably fall under OR, and most of your initial revisions and clarifications were entirely justified and, indeed, very helpful. ntnon (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
          • User:PersecutionComplex is banned user ColScott (talk · contribs). Thatcher 12:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
          • User:PersecutionComplex was also contributing helpfully to this debate. ntnon (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 19:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Hiding T 19:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge with the article on LXG. This article as originally created was quite horrible; a section on Moore's moral character? A section on Impact on LXG cast and crew that says the suit had no impact on the cast (obvious as the suit was not filed until after filming was completed, duh). It seems to have been an attempt to disparage Alan Moore (and to a lesser extent Don Murphy), although perhaps moving it to its own article was an attempt to protect them from disparagement by others who had added the material to Alan Moore; I really can't say who is at fault here. The present version of the article--brief, factual and well-sourced, without fanboy speculation or analysis--is appropriate for inclusion in the LXG movie article. Thatcher 12:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It was in no way meant to disparage Mr Moore, and there certainly shouldn't have even been a potential reading that in any way disparaged Mr Murphy. Indeed, the dual purposes of mentioning Murphy at all were, firstly, to quote him on the outcome - he had previously been quite open and informative on this - and secondly to firmly state that there was no possible cause for implying any misconduct on his part - indeed, quite the contrary: as a fan of the source material, it is unlikely that any of the changes which precipitated the lawsuit came from him. The "Impact of Murphy" mentions were absolutely geared to saying "There was no impact on Murphy". The purpose of mentioning Moore's "moral character" was not to disparge it (or him), but to explain that the very existence of the lawsuit DID place a slur on his moral and professional character - as (he belives) did the out-of-court settlement of the case (particularly after his providing a lengthy deposition/defence). The purpose of the lawsuit having a separate page was because it was deemed out of place under "LARRY COHEN," and probably too lengthy/different to slot into "ALAN MOORE" or "LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN." The "Impact on the Cast & Crew" of the lawsuit was certainly slight-to-non-existent, although a high-profile lawsuit (widely reported) naturally attaches itself to the cast involved. However, the shoot itself had significant impact on, (particularly,) Mr Norrington and Sean Connery. Short of trying to conjure a page-heading about "The many and varied difficulties in filming LXG", it seemed not entirely without cause to mention that, while the lawsuit did not really impact upon anyone other than Moore, the shoot did. In any case, it seemed appropriate/useful/notable to have a page dealing with this event. ntnon (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep – Better sources have been added to this article since it was nominated for deletion. With sources like the BBC and New York Times mentioning this lawsuit, there are definitely multiple, independent, credible sources establishing notability here. — λ (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge - Merge with the movie's article, the article's subject is notable.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 02:47, 25 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. John254 01:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] F.C. Prabis

    F.C. Prabis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    That team don't exist.. you can see in [31]. That team is not listed in any level of Guinean football leagues —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calapez (talk • contribs)

    I decided to be bold and add the above articles which are all almost identical. Similar arguments will apply to all of them. ~ Eóin (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. Those calling for deletion seem to be keen on rsssf.com, which actually shows that this team did exist, at least in 1994 and 1995. Whether it still exists is irrelevant to its notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep per Phil, and other comments I've scattered among recent AFD's by the same editor against football clubs in Guniea and Mozambique. Neier (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Also from rsssf.com:
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - I like it, but the consensus is clear. :( WilyD 14:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] List of The Simpsons chalkboard gags

    List of The Simpsons chalkboard gags (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This page is full of quotes, but due to the size and nature of the quotes, I doubt that it would be accepted at Wikiquote (and may even be deleted) Sceptre (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete as unencyclopedic or transwiki to Wikiquote if they'll have it. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge I think they are notable enough not to be binned, but do not deserve a standalone list (I'm actually quite surprised there is a Chalkboard gag article). It is unneccessary duplication as a standalone list, so either a way should be found to include the gags in the existing entries in List of The Simpsons episodes, or, it should be stripped to just a bare index list table of episode number and gag, and appended to the episode list as a sub-list. I know they are on each episode page, but think being able to find the episode you are watching by searching one page, that is more than helpfull. The most annoying thing about the simpsons is the lack of any on screen indication of what episode you were watching, unless it is on your EPG. MickMacNee (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete It belongs in Wikiquote, and every episode lists its chalkboard gag. Alientraveller (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • So if you have the quote, but not the episode name, you should have to look at every episode article until you find it? MickMacNee (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per Alientraveller. JuJube (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete It's complete fancruft that belongs in Wikiquote. Martarius (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete as per Alientraveller. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:24, 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 close without decision. In light of the evidence raised by Neier, and with consideration that the votes were cast on the basis of the information that was available at the time, it would be better to re-examine these for the other concerns raised. If renominated, the articles should be nominated separately. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] A.D. Moma

    AfDs for this article:
    Articles for deletion/A.D. Moma
    A.D. Moma (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    That team don't exist.. you can see in [32] and [33]. That team is not listed in any level of Mozambique football leagues —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calapez (talk • contribs)

    Late addition. I've bundled the above articles because they are all in the same league. ~ Eóin (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete - I'm not even sure their supposed home ground (the National Arena de Moma) exists neither, it's not listed on the Worldstadiums reference given at the bottom of the page and the only ghits for the stadium (all 5 of them) are for Wiki pages. It may be worth listing that one too as an AfD. Bettia (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    I've nominated National Arena de Moma and all of the other stadium articles for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culturenga. ~ Eóin (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete as a hoax. A similar set of articles is also at Afd. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Prabis) ~ Eóin (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep based on the false assertion that the teams are hoaxes. The teams existed in the past. AD Moma, as recently as 2003. I was close to tagging these all in this AFD; but, there are sources at RSSSF which prove that the majority of these are not hoaxes. I am still on the fence about how notable each team is, but, they probably need to be taken one at a time, and not lumped together as a single hoax AFD. Neier (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Close and re-address - most of the editors above have !voted to delete on the grounds that these articles are hoaxes. The RSSSF links provided by Neier clearly show that this is not in fact the case, and to delete these articles now would be to do so based on spurious information. The AfD should be closed and then, if editors still feel these articles should be deleted, they should be renominated based on factors such as notability, etc ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 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 no consensus, default to keep. The improvements by User:Bilby seem to go quite a ways toward addressing the deletion concerns; however, if notability is still in question, the article may be renominated for deletion. –Black Falcon (Talk) 04:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Lightbox (JavaScript)

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

    No sources proving the notability of the subject, seems to be a vanity article. Reinistalk 14:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Keep - while I agree with Fabrictramp that the article has some problems, I've added a few references and my feeling is that it is probably enough to establish notability, and hopefully helps with the lack of 3rd party sources that was identified. I guess I'll see if others think so too. :) I also tried to tackle some of the POV stuff, but don't think I've fully addressed that yet. In practice Lightbox is very popular with web developers (or at least, with web developers that I know), and fairly significant - I gather it was the first, really good, image viewer, and led to some pretty heavy development by others along similar lines. If it survives AfD I'll see if I can expand it a bit more. - Bilby (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - IBM has a web page (here) about it and the article is fully sourced. If anything the article is incomplete.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:15, 25 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  19:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Famous People With Allergies and Ashma

    Famous People With Allergies and Ashma (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Author removed prod and prod2 tags without explanation. Proposers stated: (1) listcruft; (2) This is an almost entirely random list; it is incomplete (and always will be), unsourced and probably original research.Note: this editor was 2nd proposer. Ros0709 (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete Entirely unsourced, and uninformative list. We are told that Alice Cooper, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Emmitt Smith, Beethoven and Billy Joel had allergies and asthma, which might be true and might not. Even if true, does it really matter if any of these successful people had allergies? Or, for that matter, asthma? Mandsford (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. Entirely unsourced listcruft. What's next? List of famous people wearing glasses? --Eleassar my talk 15:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. Now, a list of famous people who liked potatoes... PhGustaf (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete Non-notable and painfully incomplete. Gezunteit! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Speedy delete for being wrongly spelled as well as all the reasons given above. Bondegezou (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete - In concept, I can imagine an informative list of notable people seriously afflicted with allergies and asthma, but I don't know if that list is feasible, and this current list is useless. --Orlady (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Speedy Promote to featured list status --Rividian (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That's a...ah...ah...ACHOO!!! Great (wheeze)... idea.... (wheeze)(choke)(sniff). Mandsford (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. Good grief. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:30, 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 Deleted John Vandenberg (chat) 05:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Suzanne Olsson

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

    Article makes no assertion of notability and offers little or no evidence for it. Moreover, after two and a half years the article still carries no references and the subject of this BLP may have both started the article and continues to aggressively contribute to it, hence drawing conflict of interest worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    The subject of the article has now asked that it be deleted (see also this and this). Gwen Gale (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete - non-notable.--Michael WhiteT·C 15:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete I was close to nominating this article for deletion myself. Despite the large amount of time that has been given to allow sources to be found, none have turned up. The article used to assert coverage in major newspapers and research journals, but was never specific and a search for the subject on Google News and Google Scholar gets one hit. The article doesn't contain any assertion of notability - anyone can produce a self-published book. On top of these notability concerns, the article is a COI and BLP minefield and I see no reason to retain it. --Hut 8.5 16:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete, vanity. Esteffect (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Article subject/creator has been blocked 72 hours for edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per nomination. A speedy close may be warranted on BLP grounds since the subject apparent now wants the article deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per nomination, I've done some searches and could find nothing to show she is notable (eg no international headlines as the article claimed, etc). As the author now wants the article deleted and the whole thing has been a bit messy with accusations flying back and forth, if this can be dealt with quickly that would be good. Doug Weller (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per Gwen and Hut. -- Hoary (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Strong Delete. Insurmountable problems with WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:V, WP:BK, WP:RS, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:SPS, etc., etc., etc. Qworty (talk) 05:03, 20 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 Chelsea Headhunters. –Black Falcon (Talk) 04:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Kevin Whitton

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

    Contested prod.Non-notable hooligan, commited assault, went to prison. Nothing to warrant an article. As far as I can see sources only give passing mention to him and do not meet the "significant coverage" required by WP:N Paulbrock (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • delete As per nom. I've tried sooooo hard not to give a "!vote as per nom" but to be honest, I can't do anything but that here! The above makes it the point so well - covers all the aspects of WP:N/CA. StephenBuxton (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. There are in fact a few sources that mention him[34][35]. Still, for now looks like a BLP1E case at best. Not enough here to pass WP:BIO at the moment (although there is some chance that there are more sources out there; maybe some-one could do further digging). Nsk92 (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep There are sources, he may be noable, if we look for him in the right places.--86.29.249.238 (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. WP:BLP1E and not notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note Merge it with the Chelsea Headhunters firm artical? He was a member of it.--שראלהתקווה ' (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Not really sure which way to vote to be honest whether to keep or delete. However I have added the info about him - which is sourced as it is mentioned in a book which is viewable on Google Books - on the Chelsea Headhunters article. I don't believe that it is at all relevant to merge the article though.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per WP:BLP1E and per nom. Struway2 (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Change to Redirect to Chelsea Headhunters per User:Smile a While. I should have had a better look at the additions made by User:Tangerines before making my initial decision. Struway2 (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Redirect I fully agree with the above comments that Whitton lacks the notability for his own page. However, User:Tangerines has added sourced content to that page so I see no problem with making a redirect and it is a plausible search term. Smile a While (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Redirect to the Chelsea Headhunters and add him to the list.--86.29.244.140 (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Redirect and having thought about it now, for the same reasons as outlined above.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

    sourced--

    • ... ://irs.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/21/1/1.pdf -* ... ://www.urban75.org/football/hooligan.html -* .. ://irs.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/21/1/1.pdf--
    •  ;;://books.google.co.uk/books?id=73lGvk6EGWgC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=%22Kevin+Whitton+(++English+Football+hooligan++&source=web&ots=RkePvVvgmd&sig=X0o1Fucvl1G7PvOiet8ndVX2Mq4&hl=en-- --86.29.254.136 (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2008 --86.29.254.136 (talk) 17:12, 22 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. Singularity 06:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Thomas Sagstad

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

    WP:Notability MasterDarksol (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete Lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Google turns up 54,100 hits of which none seem to be reliable. —97198 talk 14:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I know Thomas Sagstad, he is a friend of mine. I talked and asked him for details when I was writing this article. Is that enough for reliable source? You don't need to have a solid proof for this kind of article... If you search google you can find at least 5 web pages about Thomas Sagstad easily. Nemesis5858 (talk) 12:50, 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 delete.  Sandstein  06:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Bong (game)

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

    Can find no sources to verify the truthfulness of this article. Suspected hoax or game made up by author. DAJF (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment This is not a well known game, but one that i found out about from other people, who heared it from other people etc. There may not be sources supporting the truthfulness of the game, but does a game have to have an official website to acctually exist? Scott (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • There is no requirement to have an official website, but verifiable third-party references are needed, as laid out in Wikipedia:Verifiability. --DAJF (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete - per the improvement tags on the article. The only reason I didn't list it for speedy delete yesterday was I was trying to give the author a chance to show notability and add references of somesort. The game may exist but, so do wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion many of which this article does not meet. If even one reliable 3rd party source can be found for the game I'll very quickly swap to a merge to Uno variations article of somesort (or any number of extremely similar card games that exist). Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I am currently in the process of searching for another website describing the game, and i am sure i will find one soon. I would apreciate it if the article was not deleted straight away as i am sure it will be somewhere else. Scott (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The article is unlikely to be deleted straight away, even if the final decision is for deletion, as the AfD process normally takes about 5 days, so you have some time to search for reliable reference sources. --DAJF (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete If you're bored and you have a deck of cards, the human imagination is unlimited when it comes to making up games. In the United States, people in groups of three or more have been playing "bong" for years, but even the mere possession of such parephenalia is illegal. Mandsford (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. I think Bartok (game) is the head article on these types of games, of which there are an immense variety in both names and rules. Basically, all of these shedding games are variations on Crazy 8s or Uno with baroque rules. Occasionally, the rules are secret, or devices exist for adding or changing them in the course of play. Many are drinking games, using the befuddlement caused by drink or drugs to add to the befuddlement of the baroque rules. There certainly is a rich lode here for folkorists here. But individual names and variants may not be worthy of articles. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Possible action to merge? Scott (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    Per my comment previously IF reliable 3rd party sources can be found for this variant I would be willing to support a merge of somesort. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:19, 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. John254 01:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Olympus Chrome Six

    Olympus Chrome Six (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This grotesquely long article (on a line of cameras) is riddled with WP:OR and presents an original synthesis, and anyway is about something that's of negligible significance outside a small world of collectors.

    The article was originally taken from Camerapedia, where it was released under the GFDL. There's no obvious issue of copyright (or left) here. But there are more than enough problems elsewhere.

    Camerapedia does not enforce certain of Wikipedia's core policies, particularly on WP:OR. This particular article relies heavily on the personal observations of Camerapedia contributors (and as its history reveals, largely a single anonymous author with obvious enthusiasm but no obvious qualification). The OR is evident in such language as "the cameras observed so far have..." and "none of the original documents observed so far". Note that these do not reproduce the observations or non-observations by writers in books and the like; they are instead original syntheses of what the Camerapedia author has (or authors have) found not only from magazines and so forth but also from many hours of monitoring auctions at Yahoo Japan (mostly now irretrievable) and elsewhere. Procedure and result obviously violate WP:VER.

    Further, the main author draws conclusions on the basis of his personal observations, which in some cases contradict what's written in English-language sources that can be assumed to be authoritative: "many sources wrongly say that", "it is often said that [...] but this is a mistake". The article even suggests that what the Olympus company says of its own product may be wrong: "some sources, including the Olympus company itself, give 1951 as the release date, perhaps by mistake", "the chronology of the Olympus official website mistakenly says", etc.

    There is probably a WP:POV issue here; that aside the main issue is of whether this material is verifiable or not. Wikipedia and Camerapedia differ hugely on approaches to verifiability, which is why any copying into Wikipedia would need, at the least, very radical editing.

    So what editing did it get? The article's history page here confirms what's obvious from the article in its present state: User:Megapen first copied the entire content of the article but for its links section. Unlike Wikipedia, Camerapedia allows the incorporation of images hosted elsewhere; Megapen removed a link to an (unfree) image hosted by Flickr (leaving others). He did away with the bibliography. He then got rid of another image. And that was all he did. These edits took him all of four minutes.

    Now we have an article full of Camerapedia-specific templates and red links, riddled with original research and with 95 footnotes pointing to a non-existent bibliography section. The task of stripping all the original research out of, and converting dud templates within, this fifty-plus-kilobyte page seems daunting.

    Further, the article goes on and on about this and that minor variation on a single folding camera -- a design that was of some significance to the survival of Olympus but of little significance elsewhere: the camera's sales were not remarkable and its design was not at all innovative (and indeed was rather backward). I'd say that the camera rates a paragraph in the article on Olympus and, at a stretch, also a very short article all by itself. If the latter is called for (which I doubt), such an article would be hugely easier to do from scratch than via condensation.

    As a sporadic Camerapedia editor (and one who's made very minor contributions to its "Olympus Chrome Six"), I'm all in favor of the intelligent appropriation of suitable Camerapedia material by Wikipedia (and vice versa): Camerapedia's "Ars Camera" (specifically this version) became Wikipedia's "Camera (Japanese magazine)" (specifically this version). But adjusting even such a short article takes a fair amount of time; condensing and adjusting "Olympus Chrome Six" would take much longer and it's not a job I'm willing to take on. Anyway, the magazine (Ars) Camera has a fairly prominent place in any history of photography in Japan, something that can't be said of the Olympus Chrome Six.

    It is probably unusual to nominate a B-rated article for deletion, but it should be noted that the B rating was applied by User:Megapen himself five minutes after his beaching of this sick whale of an article, now predictably putrid. -- Hoary 11:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    Nomination withdrawn. Coasttocoast did the work that Megapen should have done in the first place: (i) read the Camerapedia article, and then (ii) rewrite an entirely different article from scratch. The three people who voted to keep the beached and rotting whale of the article, expecting or vaguely demanding that persons unspecified should trim or cut it, were of course fully within their rights in doing this. They may wish to consider such other lazy scrapes of Camerapedia as 35mm Bessa, Minolta CLE, Contaflex SLR, Tenax , Konica Autoreflex . . . and quite a bit more that's marked as having come from Camerapedia. Me, I'd delete the lot. -- Hoary (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete now. Is it an ad? Wait ... no ... it's supercam. Get rid of this OR. I was expecting to find sources for the info, but alas, almost all of the claims are supported by ... more commentary by whoever authored this somewhere else. TONY (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC) .................The words "Delete now" scored through by TONY in this edit
    • Delete per nom Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete, unless someone is willing to re-write this to Wikipedia's standards. The references section is riddled with red links that, presumably, have some sort of function on Camerapedia. Wikipedia is not a Camerapedia mirror and I don't see any point in wholesale recycling of their article(s). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. I don't think Hoary (or this article) left any room for doubt. Pinkville (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep but trim mercilessly. Appears to be a notable topic (which is the criterion for keeping), but the article is definitely not up to wikipedia standards, for all of the reasons given above. But deletion is not a substitute for editing, so I think the article should be kept. Klausness (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    Has been trimmed mercilessly, so no further trimming is necesary. Klausness (talk)
      • First, being a notable topic is not the (singular) criterion for keeping. Consider the Ermanox camera (already redlinked from Erich Salomon). It's indubitably notable, a topic within any history of photojournalism. If somebody were to "create" an article on it via copyright violation, the article would (or should) be deleted as fast as possible, without prejudicing the fate of any later, unrelated article on the same topic. Now, the mess we're discussing here isn't a copyright violation. (Although it's not completely unproblematic; note Gyrofrog's comment on its talk page.) However, it's crap. ¶ True, the policy page on deletion says If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. But it follows this up with no more than: A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem. These are listed here. Some of the more common ones include [blah blah blah]. What it lacks is any explanation of how noting the problem (actually, multiple problems) is likely to bring about a radical improvement to the article. ¶ Let's suppose for a moment that this subject is notable (something you merely assert, without reasoning) and that an article is merited. I believe it would be faster to make an entirely new article (perhaps with some careful reference to this article as it is intelligibly hosted at Camerapedia) than it would be to "trim" the mess resulting from somebody doing a dump in WP. You disagree, and put "trim mercilessly" in the imperative. You don't say who you're addressing, so I suppose it's as likely to be me as much as anyone. And my response to your injunction is "hell no": it would be a great amount of entirely unnecessary work. -- Hoary (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep with severe trimming. Notable topic with too much information. Stifle (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • "Severe trimming" by whom? (And see my rejoinder to Klausness's comment.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep and cut extensively. For the material at length, Camerapedia seems the right place for the very detailed material in this article--I'm glad to have now found out about that site. But this line of camera appears to have been popular in its time, though very uninnovative, and a suitably short article is appropriate for Wikipedia. That's the right relationship between a general encyclopedia and a more specialised one. And certainly there are enough sources in that article. The nom could have cut this down to size in less time than it took to bring it here. At least it could have been stubbified. DGG (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. I have to say that starting from scratch is the far preferrable tack at this point. There is so much crap in this article that anyone contemplating "trimming" it is likely to drown in an especially unpleasant manner. It's repetitive, absurdly detailed - for a subject of very minor significance - turgid, etc. This is just the problem of lifting material from some obsessive enthusiast - it's prejudiced and of little interest to anyone else. Pinkville (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep Coasttocoast rewrote it from scratch. Delete I want to echo DGG, I'm happy to have learned about Camerapedia, which is where this article came from and where it belongs. Olympus is notable. The economic rebuilding of Japan (on the Meiji model) between 1945 and 1975 is notable. This article contains no meaningful hint that this camera model was ever notable. This article is nothing but a data dump which would take far more work to glean, research for notability, source and clean up than starting anew if this so narrow topic somehow does happen to be encyclopedic. Lastly, according to this article, its title, the term Olympus Chrome Six, never even showed up on the camera but only in advertising (50-60 years ago). A wholly rewritten paragraph or two in a history (or the products) section of Olympus Corporation would be far more helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep I got rid of the content and rewrote it. I do think this camera series is notable, it was the content in the article that was a problem. Since it was OR, un-sourced and copied from Camerapedia. I think this fixes the problem. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Notice one glaring (to me) problem with even the rewrite: what the hell is a "folder"? A dossier? A creased sheet of foolscap? And what does such a thing have to do with cameras? I'm being somewhat rhetorical, but I hope you see the problem... Pinkville (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep since it has been trimmed mercilessly. It needs categories and, as Pinkville pointed out, editing, but the major problems Hoary discussed have been solved. There's lots of room for improvement, and this is typical of a "stub." Fg2 (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep; the current trim is viable (though the version that was nominated was teh suck...). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 03:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment My thanks to Coasttocoast for his or her work on the article. My uneducated guess is that Coasttocoast is less than fascinated by the Olympus Chrome Six and benefited very little from the Wikipedia text dump (a lot harder to read than the Camerapedia article). I recognize that others, such as Gwen Gale, have put their time into it as well. No offense to them when I say that I was underwhelmed by the resulting article. I did the minimum amount of work on it that I could get away with with a clear conscience, which added up to over 20 minutes. And the result is still mediocre, to put it charitably. (For example, it makes a vague and perhaps slightly misleading boast about the rangefinder. I say "boast", as the factoid is sourced to its manufacturer.) The Camerapedia article on the same subject seems hugely better: it seems that Megapen's jolly notion of lifting it and dumping it here (costing him all of four minutes) has used up an hour or so of other editors' editing time, all in the service of an article that's feeble, that's unlikely to get much better, and that's rendered unnecessary by the Camerapedia alternative, which, if you jump past minutiae on different typefaces in lens barrel engravings (etc etc) gives a lot more information on lens coating, flash synchronization, etc (stuff that we take for granted now but that people couldn't then), and that writes lucidly about models II, IV and V. ¶ The major problem I didn't discuss above was the lazy and smug dumping of material into WP with the expectation that somebody, anybody will come along later with a trowel and prettify or bury it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep and admonish: The person who said that deletion is no substitute for editing is not entirely correct. If an article is not encyclopedic and does not meet the standards for keeping (and those are not topic alone), then the article must be entirely rewritten, and no one is under any obligation to do that. The admonition is for the person who took a specialist article from a specialist wiki and dumped it here in a mangled form. The present article can be kept, except that it begs the question of, "Why is this a big deal?" I.e. the article actually fails to tell the reader why this camera is special. It looks like a series of details on a camera, and there is nothing that tells me why this is better or worse than my Justice League Instamatic disposable. Commendations for all the hard work, but admonitions that yes indeed, deletion is required if an article is not up to standards; editing is nice, saving is nice, but no one gets to have a "keep" by just having a good topic. Geogre (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment: Thank you for a most thoughtful "keep" vote, Geogre. I wrote above in the nomination that the camera's sales were not remarkable and its design was not at all innovative (and indeed was rather backward). On sales: I should qualify that. The amount of advertising that the camera got, the fact that the manufacturer survived while many of its rivals did not, and the number of Olympus (Chrome) Sixes on the shelves of used camera dealers these days all lead me to suspect that its sales were substantial. However, I've never read this; I'm just indulging in Original Deep Thought here. On design: To me, the mystery is of why the camera had neither a coupled rangefinder nor focusing of the entire lens: both were pretty normal by 1954 or so for folding cameras costing about as much. In a sense, it's notably or at least intriguingly mediocre. Or so I think, but again this is mere Original Deep Though. The camera is said to have done a good job of holding the film flat; I'd like to know more about this and particularly why, if it was successful, it wasn't copied by rival companies. (I'd have thought that all of these other than the Mamiya Six would benefit.) All of these questions seem to me worth raising on the discussion page of the Camerapedia article, where the indefatigable Rebollo_fr might research and elucidate. ¶ And now to your Big Question: On the one hand, 120 film (for the Olympus) is a lot easier to buy than 126 (for the Instamatic), the negatives are bigger for more detail, focusing is more important with the longer lens but also perhaps more precise. On the other a Justice League camera is just soooo kewl and probably has a higher resale value than the Olympus and you must write it up at Camerapedia pronto. -- Hoary (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • So these were not the coolest cameras ever :) How notable do you think they are in the sweep of 19th and 20th century film camera history? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Just the unremarkable (other than for the film tensioner introduced toward the end) Takachiho/Olympus take on one of the four or so staple Japanese camera designs of the early fifties (others being the TLR, the lens-shutter 35mm camera, the focal plane shutter 35mm camera). A year or so after the demise of the Chrome Six, the genre was dead in Japan; it lingered in the Soviet Union another five years or so with the excellent "Iskra" (contrary to stereotypes of Soviet products, both original and well designed and made), and even longer in China (with indifferent models whose names elude me). If I were writing a two-hundred page history of cameras, I'd devote no more than three pages of it to postwar Japanese folders, and no more than four lines of that to the Olympus (more likely a single line). I hesitate to name more interesting alternatives as doing so might encourage some other upstanding editor to grab their articles from Camerapedia and regurgitate them here, bypassing the digestive system. -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm waiting to see who among the "Keeps" is weighing in to save this monstrosity. It requires not only "trimming" (slashing, I'd say), but a substantial change in tone. I don't see how it can be managed. Prove me wrong. TONY (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "Monstrosity"? You may want to look at it again -- it's changed greatly since the start of the AfD, including being stubbified. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - as it is now, it's fine as a stub. I'm not into old cameras myself, but I do see this as a notable topic. Merenta (talk) 00:35, 20 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  19:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Joleta lock

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

    Appears to be a hoax going by Google searches for "Joleta lock" and the supposed Portuguese equivalent. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete - no apparent basis in fact, seems to be more of a hoax, or at best a neologism. 'See also' article has nothing to do with this subject. CultureDrone (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete as utter non-notable BS. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. Almost certainly a hoax, and a in very poor taste. Nsk92 (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete - this seems to be a neologism; I don't think it's a hoax exactly, although the exact line of demarcation between neologisms and hoaxes here seems to be ill-defined. In any case, it doesn't pass WP:N so deletion is appropriate. Merenta (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:24, 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 all --JForget 23:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Africa Wrestling Alliance

    Africa Wrestling Alliance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Africa Wrestling Alliance lacks notability, and lacks references. King iMatthew 2008 10:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    I propose adding this redirect;

    African wrestling alliance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    Plus five championships;

    AWA African Heavyweight Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
    AWF Hardcore Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
    AWF Tag-Team Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
    AWA Royal Rumble Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
    AWA African Cruiserweight Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

    As they could not exist without the fed page. Darrenhusted (talk)

    • Delete all in case it was not clear. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep all The South African articles referenced should be sufficient enough. Ajstyles tna roh (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    You may want to look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Darrenhusted (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep all Keep the article. Nocoolname (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)— Nocoolname (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Procedural comment - I'm not going to comment one way or the other since I closed the last AfD, but I just wanted to note here that I've removed the AfD tag from African wrestling alliance. As a rule, redirects are discussed at Redirects for discussion; in addition, if the target page is deleted, then the redirect in question will be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#R1. --jonny-mt 14:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Speedy Keep The nomination is deeply flawed in that major notability is not a requirement for any article and the article has references, contrary to the suggestion otherwise. We have had this at AFD before and don't need it here again on such flimsy grounds. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    I did not notice that I wrote "major" I completely worded it wrong, so I'll remove that. Sorry! King iMatthew 2008 19:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete all, per Google search. All the hits are wikipedia, wikipedia mirror sites, primary sites, youtube, or other wikis. Notability not established. No third party references to expand or reference the articles. However, all of these South African wrestling articles might make good additions to the Professional Wrestling Wikia. Nikki311 19:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    I did include 3 third-party references recently in that article. Is there a way to transfer these articles to Professional Wrestling Wikia without creating new ones? Ajstyles tna roh (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Those refs are good enough for me. Talk to User:RobJ1981, he is an admin on the wrestling wikia. Nikki311 18:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    AfDs are open for five days, this one still has two more days. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:06, 20 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. Most of the delete votes relied upon the first AfD. The article isn't recreation of deleted material if it has substantially changed since its first deletion. Passes WP:MUSIC as a notable album (top 75 in the UK) of a notable band. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Mary Jane (Megadeth song)

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

    This was previously deleted at AfD, but has been recreated. I still can't see any notability for the song, and despite contacting the author, they just keep reverting it back rather than providing any evidence. J Milburn (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Speedy delete as a recreation of previously deleted material. Maybe we should protect the page from create-protection. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The article is a little more substantial than the last, and so G4 doesn't apply, otherwise I would have deleted it myself. J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak Keep but does need decent third pary sources added about the legend (and being based on it) to properly assert notability in my eyes. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. UK Top 75 single - a point not brought up in original nomination - and a notable band. Yes it just missed the Top 40, but the Top 75 should logically count as the chart or there's countless songs that shouldn't have articles, and plenty have all their singles with articles. Esteffect (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • KEEP. It wasn't just a song, buat a single and it should show all that information, rather than just info about the meaning of the song as it had it before (when redirecting to Killing is my bussines). -- Rockk3r Spit it Out! 17:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't think top 75 is enough to warrant an article, and I am still not seeing any reliable sources. Simply being a single does not mean that it is notable. J Milburn (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment So Far, So Good… So What!, the album in which this song is included, has long been a top selling album. Perhaps sources containing that information would help in making this specific song notable. I'm sure the song itself is mentioned in more than a few interviews with the frontman. Find those sources. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC))
    • Merge to So Far, So Good… So What!. Song does not seem to be notable in and of itself. Stifle (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • KEEP you all talk about it gotta be notable. Well it is notable, very well known song from one of the best Megadeth's albums. Also you talk about notability, Check this out I just went through some articles and found out this: almost 70% of Dream Theater, Rammstein, and so on, have articles for their songs, and they're not THAT notable, just look at this one Images and Words -- Rockk3r Spit it Out! 03:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
        • One, don't !vote twice, two, simply being by Megadeth or being from their 'best' album does not make it notable, three, if other crap exists, nominate it for deletion, we are talking about this article here, and four, I still can't see any reliable sources, meaning this also fails our verifiability policy. J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yea but as I can see you didn't even take the time to nominate those for deletion, so what's your eagerness on deleting this article. First, it was a single, second, appeared as # 46 on UK singles chart, third is a well-known song that should have that article. What do you want everyone to show?? That it's the best song ever, well too bad, because it's not, but it's not the worst either. I still DON'T understand why to delete it? Leave that article.-- Rockk3r Spit it Out! 23:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
        • If I was eager to delete it, I would just do it, and cite G4. Instead, I gave the article a chance, and I have just had the same "It's notable, I don't care what the policy says" arguments thrown at me. Please don't accuse me of having an agenda. I have nominated song articles from several heavy metal bands en masse in the past, and this just happened to be one of articles that went in my trawl of Megadeth, and that's why it was on my watchlist. This nomination was a reactive one- I saw the article on my watchlist, and dealt with the issue. This was not a proactive 'hmm, I'll go and nominate some heavy metal songs.' In answer to your other query, I am struggling to see how my explanation could be any simpler- I believe that the article should be deleted because there are no reliable sources showing that the song is notable. J Milburn (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • comment I think it would be easy to show that the song is notable if there is enough supporting sources to back it. Here is an idea, do a search and find out everything the song has been included on. Look for dvd collections as well. I think they just put out a collection of tracks recently and my bet is that Mary Jane is included in that set. If you dig a bit you might find links to different music magazine websites that have reviewed it or even a direct mention of that specific song. It should not be that hard to find and that would give more sources to show that it is notable. I'm certain that lyrics and tab has been published as well. Also find out if the song has been in any movies. Is it in any video games? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC))
    • Keep, Useful and notable information --Kyknos (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
      • "Notability", as used in the context of deletion discussions, refers to the topics of articles rather than the information they contain (i.e. their content). –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete - this article is in complete violation of an AfD ruling, if this AfD process is not respected and fails to establish precedent we are wasting our time evaluating this.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 02:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Not necessarily. The previous AfD included relatively few participants and the article, in its present form, is substantially different from the version that was deleted. –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • AfD ruling is AfD ruling, the AfD ruling was delete but this article was recreated so this article is in violation of an AfD ruling which must set precedent.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
          • While this article definitely should have gone through a deletion review (the improvement from the old version is not so substantial to unquestionably justify recreation), prior AfD rulings are not automatically binding when the content of the deleted and recreated articles is not the same, otherwise this article would have been speedily deleted under speedy deletion criterion G4. –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak keep per reaching #46 on the UK Singles Chart (I added a third source to the article). While I think that a strong argument could be made for merging to the article about the album, which is notable ([37]), I think that such a decision would best be done with the participation of editors at Talk:So Far, So Good… So What!. It's much easier to recommend merging than to actually merge content without hurting the quality of the target article. –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:27, 25 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 new sources added to the article. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Nutan Prasad

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

    Does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for biographical entries, one secondary source that doesn't indicate notability. (award is from an educational society instead of actor's guild) I found a second one, http://www.hindu.com/2005/08/04/stories/2005080401230200.htm Judge for yourself. Has done many movies, but none seem to be notable on their own merits. Napsterbater (talk) 08:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Weak Keep. This requires further digging, but he does appear to be notable. Apart from the NTR award mentioned in the article, he seems to have gotten some others as well. Here is a mention[38] of him getting something called "Allu Ramalingaiah’s memorial award" in 2007. He also appears to have Nandi Award for Best Supporting Actor in 1984; this seems to be also mentioned here[39]. Here is an article talking about him being "felicitated"[40]. There are other mentions, like here [41] and here [42]. My impression is that there is more if one keeps looking. Nsk92 (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. Verifiability is an issue for this article which does not cite multiple reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. The sources found by Nsk92 are enough to demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak keep per the sources found by Nsk92. Considering that he hasn't acted for nearly 20 years, one might expect that there would be more offline sources about him than online sources. –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:03, 25 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 as nonsense hoax. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Mark "The Johnson" Johnson

    Mark "The Johnson" Johnson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested speedy for vandalism. Patent nonsense, eg "The Johnson is one of three sons of former Orlando Magic player Magic Johson who was magical. " Debate (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

    Some cleanup since the original nomination, but still fails WP:ATHLETE. Debate (talk) 11:54, 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, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete - as a memeber of the WP:Rugby Union project, I can assure you that the above mentioned 'athlete' is not notable...--Cometstyles 09:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Procedural Delete Speedy Deletion tag removed by author. The details of the father may have changed but, this still looks like either db-vandalism or db-bio. Either way it is a speedy deletion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete Article that was silly from the start. While I don't know what the slang terms are in New Zealand for the male organ, a person calling himself "The Johnson" would get a big laugh in the United States. Mandsford (talk) 15:13, 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 merge to Carry On films#Recent activity. –Black Falcon (Talk) 04:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Carry On London

    Carry On London (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is for very good, practical reasons. Many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. We've seen so many projects fall by the wayside at the last minute that it's the only way of ensuring that this place doesn't get clogged with stubby articles about films which were never made and thus would ultimately fail the general notability guideline. It should also never be assumed that because a film is likely to be reasonably high-profile that it will be immune to the usual pitfalls which can affect these productions, especially in the current climate. Look at how many productions were postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike, including the very high profile Justice League film, and Pinkville. It's not just those affected by the strike; Jurassic Park IV, which many would consider a no-brainer for a speedy greenlight, was actually supposed to be released in 2005, and we don't even have a separate article for the (now delayed by another year) Hobbit film yet. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated without prejudice when production on this long-delayed project is finally confirmed to have begun. Steve T • C 07:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Merge with Carry On films#Recent activity. Had the stop/start production of this film been notable (in the same way that Indiana Jones IV was notable) then maybe a separate article would be warranted. So until the film is released, or until the production of the film becomes notable, merge would be the way to go. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I considered a merge, but to be honest, there's nothing useful to merge that isn't already that that article. Steve T • C 12:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • comment There are a few bits and pieces that could be, although sources should be added for those, like Daniella Westbrook's original involvement. StephenBuxton (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge this is definitely notable enough for a section in the Carry On article and, like the films mentioned in the nomination, should be redirected to Carry On films#Recent activity, as people may still search for "Carry On London" to see if it's happening or not. If production gets the green light it will then be easier to recommence it with a pre-written infobox etc in the page history. Bob talk 18:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge With the current Carry On article. ("Oh infamy, infamy...") Ecoleetage (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge. As you say, there's not much, but it's worth a few minutes to save the small bits. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:23, 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 redirect.  Sandstein  20:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Online coupon

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

    Merely a subcategory of coupon and does not warrant a separate article. It is merely a dictionary definition, and one which refers the reader to coupon anyway, which further argues against the separate article. Author contested the redir I originally placed; I propose Merge into coupon. Ros0709 (talk) 07:41, 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 merge with Piha Rescuekeep per a user's request to expand it. Apparently this was in the process as I closed it. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Piha Surf Life Saving Club

    Piha Surf Life Saving Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unsourced article about a non-notable lifesaving club. No Google news results. — Wenli (reply here) 06:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    Hold up a minute, though, apparently this group is the subject of a reality TV show that airs in Australian and New Zealand. The article needs improvement, not deletion. Leoniceno (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete or Redirect Information in this article appears to simply be a rewording of the reality show's article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge with Piha Rescue. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge to Piha Rescue. Being the subject of the reality TV show certainly satisfies WP:N, but the subject(s) really only need a single article between them.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Fabrictramp (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment can anyone find a list of winners of the NZ Surf Life Saving national championships over the years? I'm pretty sure Piha have won more than once, which would make them notable in their own right. dramatic (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm sure they have too - but unfortunately my copy of Joseph Romanos's book of NZ sports records is at the other end of town (I'm house-sitting). There doesn't seem to be much online about the championships in general, though they definitely won the national championships in 2006. As such, IUd' !vote keep. Grutness...wha? 23:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Put me down for a Keep then (and expand once Grutness gets home :-) dramatic (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    Done :) Grutness...wha? 02:36, 25 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. Ideological turf wars aside, I cannot help but wonder at AfD comments that would keep articles that are completely unsourced.  Sandstein  19:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] List of landmarks destroyed by Communist run governments

    AfDs for this article:
    Articles for deletion/List of landmarks destroyed by Communist run governments Articles for deletion/List of landmarks destroyed by Communist run governments (2nd nomination)
    List of landmarks destroyed by Communist run governments (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Blatant POV and clear soapboxing article. I am not telling these landmarks were not destroyed, yes these were destroyed but this do not warrant a separate article. This is not encyclopedic article. Yes it is true that Stalin destroyed numerous Churches, but not all those Churches are notable. This article is a list, if this is a list, it should include all the notable landmarks which were destroyed. This article is inappropriate because landmarks were destroyed by Capitalist, monarchist countries also. Numerous churches were destroyed by Muslim countries, numerous mosques were destroyed by Christian-majority nations, numerous templates were destroyed by Muslim majority nations. In this way other articles can be created like List of landmarks destroyed by Capitalist run governments, List of landmarks destroyed by pro-America governments, List of landmarks destroyed by the Western countries, List of Churches destroyed by Muslim countries, List of mosques destroyed by Christians etc. etc. It is POV to single out communism when numerous landmarks were destroyed by non-communist and religious governments. If this article stays, then Wikipedia is simply an anti-Communist hate site and propaganda machinery. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    Also 1.there is no source to prove that the destruction of these landmarks were sponsored by the government, not by some lynch mob and 2. these landmarks were destroyed to establish communism, not for any other reason. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete indiscriminate collection of information. No suggestion in title/article that the buildings were all destroyed for ideological reasons, much less common ideological reasons, even supposing a "common" ideology existed in Russia, Cambodia and Cuba. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. --Kleinzach (talk) 09:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Please delete that as an attack page. That also might be libelous. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Carryout the move recommended by the last AfD and work on including notable landmarks destroyed by non-communists. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom, and due to total absence of WP:RS. I had a quick look at the GDR section of the list, and of the four places in the GDR that are on the list and have articles, it seems highly contentious whether they were "destroyed by a Communist run government". Three were heavily damaged by allied bombing, and the other was apparently accidentally burnt down by drunken Russian soldiers. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per everyone else. POV and pointless. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. This is a very interesting list. The list of landmarks destroyed in Russia seems to be correct. Needs some sourcing though.Biophys (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Do what Jasynnash2 said --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete - Blatant POV bordering on a politically-motivated attack page. People have been invading each other and knocking down each others structures for eons, there's no need of a memorial page for all of them, nor for these. Each monument seems to already have its own article,. that is enough. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. The sole purpose of this list is to say how "really really bad communism was". That's not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a forum to push any POV. Delete. Begone. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) how "really really bad communism was". 22:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep, it's an interesting list, and brings together a large number of related incidents that would otherwise be hard to locate. Cultural destruction is an important subject. The only problem with it is that in its present state it is probably not comprehensive enough to be completely un-POV: it is only as comprehensive as the number of Wikipedia articles it can link to. I can't see how the above comment by AlasdairGreen27 can be serious. The article is mostly a list, it doesn't say anything much beyond that - if a list of destroyed monuments destroyed by Soviet Russia and its puppet states indicates something negative about Soviet Russia and its puppet states, then maybe they should have thought about that before destroying the monuments! Are we going to start removing certain lists about Nazi Germany because they show how really bad Nazi Germany was?
    • Additional Comment. The deletion proposer says that this list would be similar to a list of landmarks destroyed by Capitalist run governments, or pro-America governments, or Western countries, or Muslim countries or a list of mosques destroyed by Christians. All of these are spurious comparisons. None of them would be clearly defined bodies acting as a single unit. The Soviet system almost always tended to act like a single body, which is why a list that concerns only that body is valid, as valid for example as a list of battles fought by a particular country or power-block. Meowy 00:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: No this is not "spurious" comparison. Off course List of Churches destroyed by Muslim country or List of mosques destroyed by Christians is a single system because the entire Muslim world act as a single body under the same ideological umbrella. And all your above comments are original research. This article documents some indiscriminate collection because this do not mention if these were destroyed for ideological reason or not. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep as a record of a notable, quantifiable, well-documented phenomenon. Of course we need sources, and those should be fairly easy to find - many are even in the respective articles. As to the contention that "if this article stays, then Wikipedia is simply an anti-Communist hate site and propaganda machinery" - well, you know, in killing 100 million people, and in destroying these priceless treasures, and in perpetrating all manner of other horrors, Communism itself showed boundless amounts of hate, and vehement hatred of Communism is a perfectly acceptable emotion and even motivator for composing such articles. Naturally, however, that emotion should be kept out of the mainspace, as is the case here - these are simple facts documenting a small portion of what was wrought by one of the greatest plagues to strike humanity, not manifestations of "hate". Biruitorul (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: It is not only communism that killed people, it is Christianity or Islam which also killed numerous people. And what is your personal view on communism is not the world view on communism. As you personally hate communism, you will find numerous people who hate Islam and you will find numerous people who hate Christianity. As you personally view communism as "evil", you will find numerous people who view Islam as "evil", and you will find numerous people who view Christianity as "evil". Views on any particular ideology is always polarized. Wikipedia is not supposed to be written from the evil neocon view to spread New World Order and to establish the resident of the White House as the dictator of the world. You will find plenty of sources which are fanatically negative towards religion. This is not the place for debating over the ideology, this is the place for debating if this particular article is POV or not. And as several people have pointed out above, this is a blatant POV soapboxing and pointless article with indiscriminate inclusion criteria created to serve the author's POV. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    I don't know what the author's POV is. I do know that if done neutrally and with citations, such a list can illustrate one of the effects of Communism, and do so without trying to push a particular POV. (By the way, deaths caused by Christianity and even Islam are several orders of magnitude below what Communism killed.) Biruitorul (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    You do not understand the author's POV is your personal matter (it is due to you probably share the author's POV or political agenda). Deaths by Christianity and Islam is not below if not higher. Off course to the monarchists, religion is the only truth in the world. But monarchist/capitalist view on communism is not the world view. The original issue is that this list is indiscriminate collection which do not specify if these landmarks were destroyed for ideological reason or not. This can be only done neutrally if any this kind of list includes landmark destruction by religious governments. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    No, I'm sorry, I don't know what the author's POV is because none is apparent - please stop divining POVs and "political agendas" where there are none, and try some AGF for a change. And let's not be silly: "deaths by Christianity" and Islam too are, at a maximum, a couple of million, though probably less - in any case far less than Communism's 100 million. And please: your ad hominem attack regarding monarchism was uncalled for. The list is not indiscriminate, but I agree it could be refashioned to better emphasize the motivation for destruction. Finally, you're mixing apples and oranges: Communism is a political ideology while Christianity and Islam are religions. Feel free to create the latter articles, but there's no imperative to delete this one. Biruitorul (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    You stop being silly. "Death by communism" is nothing compared to death by Christianity and Islam. You are saying death by Christianity and Islam is "a couple of millions"! Sigh. In one single period, Christianity took the lives of 75 million people [43]. From 1347-50, Christians killed 18,600 Jews in 350 separate massacres. In 1347 only, 10,000 Jews brutally slaughtered by peace loving Christians. You will find plenty of sources about the crimes committed by Christians. Over 2,000,000 were killed in a single action by Christians [44]. The number of people killed by the Islam is in hundreds of millions. In India alone, 80 million Hindus were killed by Muslim rulers during the Muslim rule. In 1399 Teimur killed 100,000 Hindus in a single day. And it is only killings by Christians and Islam. There comes the next question of slavery. Both Christianity and Islam turned millions of people into slave. After Turkish conquest of Hungary, Muslims decimated population there, took 3 million slaves, and castrated the men before selling them in the markets of North Africa. Death by Christians and Muslim and the atrocities committed by the Christians and Muslim is far more worse, if not worst. These religious monsters are a cancer to humanity, a threat to humanity and "deaths by communism" is nothing compared to the deaths by these religious monsters. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Ah, thank you for a hearty laugh. You cannot blame the Black Death on the Catholic Church. You cannot blame the Vietnam War on the Catholic Church. You can blame the Gulag, the Katyn Massacre, the Great Leap Forward, Piteşti prison, the White Sea Canal, the Danube-Black Sea Canal, the Cultural Revolution, the Great Purges and much else on Communism. Now, yes, Christians have (lamentably) killed Jews and others, Muslims have killed Hindus, Christians and Jews, and so on. However: a) no evidence has been provided of mass Muslim slaughter of Hindus and b) killings motivated by religion (distinct, I may add, from killings perpetrated by followers of a particular religion) still dwarf those committed in the name of Communism. Biruitorul (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    I am again saying "death by communism" is nothing compared to the deaths by those religious monsters. You want evidence about mass killing of Hindus? Made me laugh. Goa Inquisition, Aurangzeb, in 1399 Teimur killed 100,000 Hindus in a single day. During the rule of Aurangzeb and many other Muslim rulers, numerous Hindu temples were destroyed in India. According to K.S. Lal, only between 1000 and 1525 CE, 60 to 80 million Hindus in India died as a result of Muslim invasion. As I have said above, in one single period, Christianity took the lives of 75 million people [45]. You will not be able to sleep at night if you read the total number of deaths caused by Christianity. I have plenty of sources about those religiously motivated deaths by the religious monsters because they are easily available, but I hope AfD is the not right place for that. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    Eh, the Goa Inquisition killed a couple hundred, and KS Lal's figures are far from authoritative or conclusive. Again: the Catholic Church is not responsible for the Black Death - that is the stuff of conspiracy theories. And one cannot simply wave away the Gulag, the Katyn Massacre, the Great Leap Forward, Piteşti prison, the White Sea Canal, the Danube-Black Sea Canal, the Cultural Revolution, the Great Purges and so much else as if they were mere details. The numbers do add up: 100 million, or at the very least quite near that figure. And the evidence is far more conclusive, and the link to Communism far more direct, than in the case of the Muslim invasion of India. Biruitorul (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: There may be an article titled List of landmarks destroyed for political motivation which will include landmarks destroyed by Muslims countries or Christians which will be easy to find, but this kind of article which single out one particular ideology is POV. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete Aside from the obvious pov issue, that article lacks reliable sources.—Chris! ct 06:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete, soapboxing, not encyclopediatic article. --Soman (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Rename to List of landmarks destroyed for political reasons. Also, a List of landmarks destroyed for religious reasons should be created to include Buddhas of Bamyan and the like. bogdan (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete, an excellent example of an article that violates WP:RS, WP:SOAP, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:POV. Arsenikk (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. Predictably, this list isn't complemented by a list of communist landmarks destroyed by non-communist governments, which has been at least as extensive. The Stadtschloss was demolished by the GDR, which built the Palast der Republik, which is in turn now being demolished so that the Stadtschloss can be rebuilt. This sort of destruction of landmarks is good subject matter for an article (in general or as individual cases), provided it's presented in context; to do it in the way this list is done misses the point entirely and serves only to promote an agenda. Everyking (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. Even the title of this is loaded, "landmarks destroyed" is a negatively loaded phrase. The entire premise of this article is that communist governments are cultural vandals, and I don't think these governments are worse than other governments in this regard. I have no sympathy with communist thinking, but this article is clearly in violation of NPOV. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Then why not include other governments and rename the article as suggested above? Just because it might not have the best title is not a reason to delete an article. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:01, 21 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 Wikipedia:Notability (books). PeterSymonds (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] The Thing About Jane Spring

    The Thing About Jane Spring (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non notable book, fails WP:BK, no references, and written like a promotional article. asenine say what? 05:31, 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 CSD G3, vandalism/hoax, wouldn't have qualified for WP:BJAODN. --Kinu t/c 05:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Japan-Mars Alliance

    Japan-Mars Alliance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Pretty clear hoax: no Ghits, and I'm pretty sure this wasn't ever mentioned in the novel. I didn't feel comfortable prodding it or tagging for speedy (G3), so I've brought it to AfD. nneonneo talk 04:33, 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 23:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Daret

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

    This page contains no meaningful content whatsoever; everything in it is already contained in other articles, such as The Empire (Inheritance) Spinach Dip 03:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete. Non-notable, minor plot setting. Extremely doubtful that reliable secondary sources have or ever will devote significant coverage to this specific topic. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per Doctorfluffy. Stifle (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Redirect, as this could be a valid search term. Otherwise give it the heave-ho.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. This subject is already covered in other articles. --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per above. Not enough encyclopedic information to warrant its own article. Una LagunaTalk 20:24, 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 --JForget 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] List of Guests on Late Night with Conan O'Brien (2nd nomination)

    AfDs for this article:
    Articles for deletion/List of Guests on Late Night with Conan O'Brien (2nd nomination)
    List of Guests on Late Night with Conan O'Brien (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Relisting separately per result of last AFD: Unsourced list that does not provide any functional information, external link implys links only to the imdb page for the show and not the page where the information comes from: the link also implys that this entire article is merely a reprint of IMDB's data. Should wikipedia merely mirror information from another website? As stated in the previous debate, almost everyone who's anyone in show biz has been on Late Night. An indiscriminate list of people's names with no additional information is fairly useless information, and not particularly notable.

    On an unrelated point, I appologize if I screwed up the format of this AFD: instructions said to add (2nd nomination) to the tag, but that seems to have really messed up this preloaded AFD. The previous combined AFD for this article and others is available at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sketches from Late Night with Conan O'Brien. - TheHYPO (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Strong delete. Add the members to a category if desired. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep Cleanup per tag that was already there, include dates, notes, and sources. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. This list does not add value to Wikipedia. Late Night with Conan O'Brien has aired over 2,500 episodes, typically with three guests per night. Thus, the number of guests on the show is likely in the thousands. As TheHYPO indicates, a very large percentage of prominent entertainers of the last 15 years have appeared on the show; it's not particularly distinctive for a celebrity to have appeared on the show. The individual entries are unsourced and are just bare names with no comments, obviating the point of having a list. They are also inexplicably alphabetized by first name. Finally, the source used to generate this list may not have differentiated between actual guests and people who appeared in sketches; this might explain some of the redlinks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete Per Metropolitan90's "it's not particularly distinctive for a celebrity to have appeared on the show", this should neither be a category nor a list. Trivial, unsourced (or just a mirror), too many people anyway. – sgeureka t•c 07:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete As User:Metropolitan90 said, most celebrities have appeared on Late Night at one time or another. This is utterly unmaintable. (I also voted to delete in the previous AfD). --Phirazo 17:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. Not much more to add. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 22 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Gens (emulator)

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

    This article makes no assertion of its notability, and I highly doubt it has any. The article is also written somewhat like an advertisement, showing off mostly the features of the emulator and no real world connections. I don't think any amount of cleanup can help this article, and so I nominate it for deletion here. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 03:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete tghe is right, but I'm still not convinced Sceptre (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete: as much as I wouldn't like to, there is currently no reliable sources in the article that is essential to provide evidence of notability. As for gaining sources, this may be difficult. A search on Google shows that any hits for the emulator is from self-published sources or download links. Therefore, it would not be possible to assert notability. Sadly, this seems to apply with every emulator (possibly aside from Virtual Console, which does have secondary sources), including the most well known emulators. After this AfD, it may be worth discussing this issue with the relevant WikiProjects to ensure almost all emulation software articles are reliably sourced or deleted through AfD. --tgheretford (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete I agree with Tghe-retford's vote and the implications behind it. This issue should be settled. JuJube (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep This emulator was apparently featured and won some sort of distinction from the popular UK print mag Retro Gamer.[46] Someone who has a copy of the issue mentioned could provide verification. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    Update: I located a copy of the magazine and added the reference to the article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • keep, I myself use this emulator. Shadowkinght Talk Hi 18:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. The issue here might be that there isn't really a lot which can be written about it, but it's regularly covered in print magazines (retrogaming and PC gaming alike) as the best-of-breed Mega Drive emulator so it evidently passes WP:N. I think I've even got the issue of Retro Gamer mentioned by ham Pastrami. As to the idea that "the issue should be settled", while the deletionist in me likes the idea of 95% of WP's emulator articles being deleted I wouldn't put any money on there being consensus for it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Then show me how it passes WP:N. Right now, the only sources there (and I'm talking about external links, since there's no actual references) are first-party. If you say that there's coverage, then prove it, because as it's written, there's no evidence of notability. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 22:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak delete The retrogamer article begins to establish notability, but the bar for inclusion is multiple reliable sources. From the looks of the retrogamer mention, it doesn't look like anyone else have given this more than a quick mention. Randomran (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete - If the retro gamer source is substantial (and not just a quick mention on the coverdisk) then Gens can be mentioned in a broader article, per WP:N guidelines for subjects with a single, substantial source. (and I would suggest starting a List of console emulators for this, as there are many emulator articles with similar problems.) Marasmusine (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    I would be ok with merging. This might be the best move under the circumstances. While I recognize that sourcing is a real issue here, I also have serious concerns about the proposed cascade deletion of an entire category of articles because it's probably an excessive move in the long run. Some, perhaps even a majority of articles can be deleted but the stronger examples should be kept on a list or integrated into an article somewhere. For example, Gens could be mentioned at Sega Genesis#Emulation, if it comes to that. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • strong keep - Gens (emulator) is part of the Category:Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis emulators, if the Gens (emulator) article is deleted you might as well delete the entire category because I can't see how the other elements of that category are any different.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:04, 25 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  06:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] The CommonLine Project

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

    Completely non-notable website. There are a number of sources given, but none of them meets WP:RS, being blogs and forums and associated sites. A Google presence exists, but in plowing through it for twenty minutes I haven't been able to dig up one single WP:RS. So the notability is not in the cards for this one. Qworty (talk) 03:00, 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 DELETE. Article asserts no notability, and seems to exist purely to promote the creator's website. JIP | Talk 04:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Keep on keeping me

    Keep on keeping me (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Song by a guy with a with little more than a website and a myspace page. I looked for WP:RS and found nothing but his own website and a few mentions of a gig at a local bar. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:49, 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.  Sandstein  20:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Rashid A. Chotani

    Rashid A. Chotani (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Hey, kids, someone posted their own biography/cirriculum vitae! How do we know this? Well, we don't for absolutely-gosh-darn sure, but here are two clues: 1) The article subject's surname is "Chotani." 2) The original (and only) author is User:Chotani. Coincidence? I think not. And there are no references at all, nothing by which to verify, and Google search turns up no relevant hits. That makes him not notable, aside from the vanity of it all. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    Careful. Don't bite. Tparameter (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    I know, I know. A meager effort at sanity preservation on my part. I've seen too many of these lately. Is that Viedo Professor guy selling a DVD called "How to Get Yourself on Wikipedia" now or something? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Speedy userfy. That's what I would do if I found this article submitted for speedy deletion, since the author has not set up his own userpage and his name matches the subject of the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Speedy userfy - ...but you should note that 'google hits' themselves are not a reason to delete a page. asenine say what? 05:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • comment was missing AfD template from article. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete looks too much like non-notable bio/spam and Wiki is not a webhost for C.Vs - No way to verify that the user and the subject are in fact the same person without going through the proper channels which is up to the author and not to us. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. A search of Medline and WoS shows only three papers, two with no citations and one with 4 citations. Googlescholar[47] and GoogleBooks[48] also show little evidence of having made substantial impact in the field. I would say he fails WP:PROF for the moment and it does not look like he passes WP:BIO either. Nsk92 (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. Completely unsourced and largely likely unsourceable. I don't see the point of userfication — that should only be for articles that need work to be made sufficiently verifiable to be an article but can be a decent article once that work is put into them. Here, the problem doesn't seem to be a need for improvement in the writeup but rather a need for improvement in the person's real-world prominence; that's not something userfication can fix. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I think my "userfy" comment was misunderstood. User:Chotani is a new editor here. He created a page about (presumably) himself. It would have been accepted if he had created it as his own user page, but instead he created it in the mainspace, where it is not appropriate. My recommendation was to move Rashid A. Chotani to User:Chotani with the ensuing cross-namespace redirect being deleted per WP:CSD R2. Thus, the editor would get the page he created about himself on his own user page, and it would be out of the mainspace, never to be moved back. Even if Rashid Chotani later turned out to be notable, we would want to write the article differently in the mainspace by basing it on independent sources rather than his own autobiographical statements. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    Hmm-m, I don't like this idea at all. First, this kind of decision is up to User:Chotani. He can create a copy of the current Rashid A. Chotani anywhere in his user space right now. Second, the kind of stuff that is currently in Rashid A. Chotani is not really appropriate for a user page, per WP:USER. Some basic biographical info, sure, but moving the current text there would be essentially equivalent to creating an ad. There is an excessive amount of material here that is completely unrelated to Wikipedia as a project. Nsk92 (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak delete I and Realyhick failed to find any specific source from which this was copied, though it certainly does sound that way. I tried the various websites for his projects as well as Google, and found various similar paragraphs for portions of it, but not similar enough for copyvio. The notability would be more the administrative positions than the research. As for the research, WoS finds 4 papers, of which "Title: Innovative surveillance methods for rapid detection of disease outbreaks and bioterrorism: Results of an interagency workshop on health indicator surveillance Author(s): Pavlin JA, Mostashari F, Kortepeter MG, et al., Source: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH Volume: 93 Issue: 8 Pages: 1230-1235 Published: AUG 2003 " has 7 citations. Scopus, shows 12 citations for it with its wider range, but that's the top. DGG (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete This fails WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:PROF and therefore deletion from mainspace benefits the project. I'd support userfying this if the user had an edit history, and therefore a WP benefitting reason for having a user page, but this autobiography is the editors only contribution. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:35, 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 delete. Wizardman 03:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Ananda Selah Osel

    Ananda Selah Osel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Notability neither demonstrated nor asserted. Lots of sources given, but almost all of them fail WP:RS, being mostly blogs and forums. We have an extremely minor poet here who throws up practically nothing in terms of Ghits: [49]. This writer hasn't even published a book, thus failing WP:BK. The lack of notability may point to WP:COI or even WP:AUTO. In fact, there are a lot of associated edits on a variety of articles, strongly indicating WP:SPAM. I'm still in the process of tracking all of these down and deleting them. Qworty (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    I agree that the sources are lacking, and yes he’s not published a book but I have heard of about his writing. He seems to be a rather large figure in the small press and the article seems pretty critical suggesting some sort of neutrality.66.212.78.220 (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.78.220 (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete as non-notable: soundly fails both basic and additional criteria at WP:BIO. If and when he gains demonstrable notability, the article can be recreated. Hqb (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note This article should be moved to the stub sections or be considered a developing article. Yes, the article fails the WP:BIO test but I specifically searched this guys name in Google and was pleased when I found an article about him. I also believe that the above comment is incorrect about the author not publishing a book. He is a independent press author and the book probably just had limited distribution. At best this article should be moved or merged in some way192.211.25.9 (talk)James —Preceding comment was added at 00:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Suspicious ISP activity. Thus far, both of the comments arguing in favor of this article have come from anonymous dial-ups. One of them comes from Evergreen State College (State of Washington)[50], where the subject of the article is admittedly a student. The other comment comes from the Seattle Public Library system [51]. I suppose these could actually be two separate people, and people other than the subject himself, though this could also be one person moving from anonymous terminal to anonymous terminal. Qworty (talk) 04:33, 20 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. –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] It's The Phillips Records

    AfDs for this article:
    Articles for deletion/It's The Phillips Records
    It's The Phillips Records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non notable label. Label turns up very few Google hits. It only released one single. The only claim to notability seems to be that it was Sam Phillips first label. Izzy007 Talk 01:54, 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. Overall, the consensus is that the article should remain, whether it be renamed or not. There is no consensus to rename here (and this is not the correct forum), so I direct interested parties to Wikipedia:Requested moves. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Parenting practices

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

    Appears to be OR Essay LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete although the article is sourced, concur with nom. that it appears to largely be an essay on a theory of Annette Lareau. JJL (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete as an essay. JIP | Talk 04:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Is well-written, but right now it seems to be an essay explaining a particular point of view. Although I am voting "weak delete" at this time, I am also tagging it for possible "rescue." 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete: Wikipedia is not a howto-guide. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Move to Parenting practices and social stratification in the United States and keep. This is not "original research" by our definition; the views expressed in the page are a synopsis of published research by an authority in the field. I don't see how this is a how-to guide at all. As noted above, the article is quite readable and clear, and is otherwise an excellent contribution. The problem is that the title "parenting practices" gives rise to an expectation of a general article about parenting, with a worldwide perspective: and this article is not that. Moving this to a title that actually describes its content fixes that. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    Our definition of original research to a large extent includes synopsis. See WP:SYN. I have not examined the article, nor the cited papers, so I do not know if this applies in the current case. Taemyr (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    Nor do I. Perhaps "synopsis" was a poor choice of words. But the link you cited refers to synthesis serving to establish a position, i.e. the editor's position; while in the article in question, the positions taken seem to be properly credited to the researcher herself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Move. I realize that I am bias because I am the author of the article. I also understand that it could sound like an essay, as it was part of a project for a class. However, I think that it is clear, well written, unbiased, and a good contribution to Wikipedia. It is based on books and articles (cited) by respected authors in the field and provides valuable information, making it valuable to be on Wikipedia. I also agree that that the title may be misleading. This was one of the main concerns when I first began working on the page (this can be seen on my talk page User talk:Ddk977x2). The title may be misleading and I support it being moved, but it does not need to be deleted.Daniel (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment do you have a suggestion for a new name? If good info. can be retained, that's always beneficial. JJL (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment I do not have any great ideas for a name. If it can be added to a preexisting page, that would be good. I do agree with Smerdis of Tlön that Parenting practices and social stratification in the United States is an option.Daniel (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep Very important sociological topic. This is not our original research; it's an overview of a particular scholar's research. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:52, 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 delete. No evidence of notability provided. Other keep reasons centred mainly around WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is not a valid argument at WP:AFD. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] MetaMorpho

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

    Contested PROD. Software with no evidence of notability from WP:RS. Pretty much anything I can find is about Metamorpho (the comic book character). --Kinu t/c 01:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Keep: Is sourced; more notable than any comic-book character. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete PROD wasn't even contested "properly" (no attempt to discuss was even made just a simple removement of the tag) only an assertion of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in an edit summary. Article doesn't assert notability and reads like an advert for a website that apparently uses said technology. No qualms about starting anew with reliable 3rd party sources (not saying the non-link reference aren't reliable) and full assertion of notability. And really the comic-book character mention above adds nothing to the discussion of the merits of this article at all. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete Doesnt appear to be notable. possibly consider a redirect to Metamorpho as a mispelling. --neonwhite user page talk 23:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep: More details and secondary refrerences are provided: an award, a link to the system's press page and web statistics proving that MetaMorpho technology and the site based on it have rather high relevance at least for Hungarians. Please note that most references to MetaMorpho technology are in Hungarian.

    Tihanyi (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

      • There are no more references than there were previously (three), just multiple external links to the same website strewn in there. The only thing added that may assert notability is the eFestival award; however, that alone does not seem to be sufficient per WP:N. --Kinu t/c 18:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: More refrences to lectures hold on international conferences about MetaMorpho are added. However we argue that the relevancy of MetaMorpho is primary determined by the big number of Hungarian users who use MetaMorpho. Using this technology they not only can but they really do read the English web pages. We think it is worth to be mentioned at Wikipedia since webforditas.hu is a tool to read Wikipedia. The high number of articles in important Hungarian newspapers remained unnoticed (30 in 3 years), likely because they are in Hungarian. This is actually what gives the importance of the English-Hungarian machine translation (Hungarians purely read or write in other languages). Tihanyi (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Since similar machine translator pages like Apertium, OpenLogos, GramTrans exist. Tihanyi (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Please note that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping. I've also changed a couple of your keeps to comments for clarity sake. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:41, 23 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 - "Fails WP:WEB" is a much stronger argument than "passes WP:ILIKEIT" and "passes WP:BADFAITHNOM". A few offhand mentions are generally not held as sufficient coverage. Small bits of content might be added to appropriate articles "Criticism of Wikipedia" or such - ask me and I'll provide you with it if you're not an admin. Offsite canvassing is troubling to number-counting, but the arguments stand on their own. WilyD 14:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Wikinfo

      ATTENTION!

    If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

    Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

    Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
    AfDs for this article:
    Articles for deletion/Wikinfo Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (3rd nomination)
    Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (4th nomination) Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (5th nomination) Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (6th nomination)
    Wikinfo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A cursory search on the subject suggests a lack of notability; no sources in mainstream news and only trivial coverage in the blogosphere. Most of the inline references don't mention the subject or *are* the subject. Celarnor Talk to me 01:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete, as nom. Celarnor Talk to me 04:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete This is indeed an important subject in the history of Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia is not required to explain its own subculture, as much as the amazingly comprehensive Criticism of Wikipedia article might make you think otherwise. There is a wiki called MeatBall which covers the "meta" subjects for c2.com's WikiWiki. Similarly, this article might be useful to some wiki (Meta?) which exists to preserve Wikipedia's history and famous debates and so forth. However, as a subject in its own right Wikinfo fails WP:WEB. It is cited in scholarly articles only as an offshoot of Wikipedia. Shii (tock) 01:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete Cited sources do not seem to denote this subject as adequately notable. Would be happy to reconsider if additional references were added. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I would also be amenable to moving this out of article space to an appropriate place in Wikipedia space. --ElKevbo (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Strong keep Good article on an interesting subject, I am baffled as to why it would be afd'd. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    WP:ILIKEIT?! Shii (tock) 01:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC
    No, I like it would be a complete misreading of my comment, I am talking about its educational value and worth tot he encyclopedia, my personal view is that its a subject that does not particularly interest me but my own view is, as you say, not relevant. Thanks, SqueakBox01:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC).
    It doesn't meet notability guidelines. Very little to no coverage in reliable sources. Celarnor Talk to me 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete I read the other AFDs a few minutes ago, and have looked through the previous AFDs, and say delete. We have three sources. One book: so far so good. Erik Moller's article: so far so good. The Journal of American History: this is good. Three sources, for one site, but no other notability? The essay at http://reagle.org/joseph/2004/agree/wikip-agree.html only mentions it trivially, so doesn't count, and Joseph Reagle he doesn't appear to be particularly notable[52]. That said, I say delete. It's status as a fork of Wikipedia has no notability value in and of itself, and we have a grand total of three sources. That doesn't strike me as notable enough. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete none of the cited (neutral external) mention wikinfo other than in passing as a fork with a different philosphy - not notable. ViridaeTalk 01:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Speedy Keep Per the 6 previous AfD's. This is an abusive nomination, suspiciously made less than 2 hours after this article was mentioned at the contentious Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD. Z00r (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • How is that in any way abusive? ViridaeTalk 01:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, first of all it is abusive to nominate an article again and again and again and again and again and again until finally the right set of people happen to show up and the vote works out in your favor. Secondly, it is abusive to create a nomination for one article for the purpose of affecting the outcome of another article AfD. Z00r (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Want to back up that bad faith assertion with a bit of evidence? ViridaeTalk 01:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Um... the ED article is up at AFD five times, some article have gone 10+ times... Lawrence Cohen § t/e 02:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • How is this abusive? Someone pointed out an article to me that was poorly cited. I nominated it for AfD. It's been more than a few months. It has nothing to do with the ED article (which I think is much better sourced and should be speedily kept). And I've never participated in a discussion on this material before. I didn't even know what it was until now. Please assume good faith. Celarnor Talk to me 02:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Very well, it seems that you are acting in good faith, despite the suspect circumstance. Here are a select set of reasons, culled from the previous AfD's, that demonstrate why I think it should be kept:
          • It is notable not as a website, but as an open source project fork of a very notable project. Thus, WEB is irrelevant. (It is listed here as one of the 43 best wikis (not that it really is)). (post originally by BrokenSegue 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC))
          • Keep per my belief that this is a historically important wiki. The Wikipedia:Notability (web) is a guideline, not a suicide pact. (post originally by Yamaguchi先生 23:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC))
          • I find it extraordinarily disengenuous to claim that 500,000 Google hits are meaningless. It shows more a POV-pushing then a real intent to discover the facts in this case. Are you actually claiming that wikipedia has a half-million clones spewing meaningless copy pages? If we even had 10,000 bloggers mentioning wikinfo it has far surpassed the necessary bar to keep here. Just the fact alone that there are a half-million pages, makes it significant in terms of googlespansion if nothing else, and that's all we need. (post origionally by Wjhonson 00:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC))
          • A fork of a very well known project can be notable if t here are sources to show it's well known, and there are. Just barely, but sufficient. Paid sources are acceptable. Paid external links, no, but as sources, sure. (Post originally by DGG (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
          • Z00r (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
            • The first one of those claims WEB doesn't apply, but it still has to be notable somehow. This even fails the heavily inclusionist general notability guidelines (i.e, multiple bits of non-trivial coverage grant notability). The second one is ILIKEIT, and the third is something between ILIKEIT and THISNUMBERISHUGE. I can't really make anything out of the fourth comment, since I don't really know what independent reliable sources he's talking about. Celarnor Talk to me 02:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Ahh yes, WP:EPTBP (Essay Pretending to be Policy) Z00r (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep Per the fact that of the previous multiple AFDs over the course of the last 12 months alone, all but one were WP:SNOWBALL keeps. Do we need to keep revisiting this every few months? 23skidoo (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Got an answer to the claims of lack of notability. ViridaeTalk 02:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Why should anyone have to respond to claims, especially empty ones. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
          • None of those sources are non-trivial. Care to point out one that is? ViridaeTalk 05:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
            • The second ref doesn't look trivial, and nor does the 3rd ref though as theat is in german i cannot understand it to judge its non-triviality. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
              • You are of course aware then that that second source you refer to refers to wikiinfo once, in passing. Seems pretty trivial to me. You can also hardly use the german language source as notability - because you and i don't know what it says. (hell there is not guarantee it is even about wikiinfo) ViridaeTalk 14:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
                • The German ref does contain a paragraph about Wikinfo and NPOV but it doesn't constitute non-trivial coverage. The first ref barely mentions Wikinfo (only says it's a fork followed by a quote from Wikinfo about Wikipedia). Even if we assume that the German source is non-trivial coverage we are one ref short of notability. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
                • This is the first time I've heard the argument that a source must be in English in order to confer so-called notabiliy. - Nhprman 17:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • Here's a Google translation (bumpy, but readable) of the German-language source ("Der Stein der Wikis" by Erik Möller 11.04.2005). The entire coverage of Wikiinfo is in the third paragraph under the "Vergabelte Content" (Vergabelte Inhalte) section. The coverage is a total of one paragraph of four sentences. It's too much of a stretch for us to interpret that as anything other than a brief summary of the nature of the content, WP:WEB's relevant definition of "trivial". Noroton (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep Not substantially different from prior versions kept. MBisanz talk 03:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per Shii above. Fails WP:WEB every way you look at it. The cited sources are either self published or trivial per our usual standards. Non-trivial means non-trivial. It isn't exactly rocket science. EconomicsGuy (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I have no strong opinion about this article, but in the event it is determined to not be appropriate for the article namespace, I would like to request that it be moved to the project namespace rather than just be deleted. It might be similar to a page move I did a while back for Wikipedia:Semapedia. Notable or not, it's probably useful information to document somewhere on the project. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Excellent idea. Whether or not it meets notability standards, it's useful for Wikipedians, so it would be an appropriate move. Noroton (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete, fails WP:WEB, which is the guideline for such matters. Ned Scott makes a good suggestion - as an atlernative to deletion, a move to project space would be agreeable. Neıl ☎ 10:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete WP:WEB applies to sites we like, too. Arguing based on previous AFDs is pretty weak... just because the ballot box was stuffed before doesn't mean we have to keep electing the village idiot out of tradition. --Rividian (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Speedy Strong keep for reasons given in the previous five AfDs. This does seem a bit like "keep trying until I get the result I want"... Klausness (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment A) it can't be speedy kept when there are valid delete !votes and B) consensus can change so assume good faith and give us a source showing non-trivial coverage. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • (a) Fair enough, changed to strong keep. (b) Consensus is unlikely to change after five AfDs. I do try to assume good faith, but it's difficult to do so with a sixth AfD that gives no new reasons for deletion. As for sources, the article already has them. Klausness (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Strong keep 6th nomination? Nominations again and again... Keep per all good arguments that were written in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th nomination. --Dezidor (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Please see WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED for why this argument is not really valid. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • what good argument would they be? They certainly dont overcome the current lack of significant coverage required by WP:WEB ViridaeTalk 14:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete sources have not been brought to the table, so fails WP:WEB. Are we keeping this because it was started by a well-respected editor? EJF (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. Completely and utterly fails WP:WEB by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. I'm perplexed how this was kept so many times before. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep many Wikipedia articles are about far less notable subjects.Barbara Shack (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm too much of an inclusionist to vote "delete" on this, but there is some hypocrisy in that some of the same people who are insisting on a really high standard of notability for ED are voting to keep this one despite a lack of coverage outside our own little wiki-universe. And people are condemning the repeated attempts at deletion here when both sides of the ED debate have practiced the "When at first you don't succeed, try try again" strategy whenever their side lost the last round. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep Wikinfo is a notable growing community with a unique set of policies including Sympathetic Point of View and the ability to write Signed Articles (which are labeled as such) and the ability to grow articles that are stubs without repeated deletion attempts (not pointing any fingers here, but...) More than just a copycat encyclopedia, and worthy of continued inclusion here. Also, an excellent alternate culture to the flawed Deletionist mentality here on Wikipedia, which, ironically, this rather bizarre AfD process illustrates perfectly. Empty claims, urgings to read biased essays that are not policy but only guidelines, and actual policies that have been gang edited to defend rampant deletionism don't sway me, and I hope someday they stop swaying other editors here. - Nhprman 17:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Right. Wikipedia:Notability is a widely accepted and longstanding guideline, and Wikipedia:Verifiability in fact is policy which this article fails miserably at. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The only empty claims here are the notability claims of this subject. I'm an inclusionist in favor of keeping most things, but this fails any concept of notability whatsoever, and even only barely scrapes by verifiability. Celarnor Talk to me 18:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Solicitated vote[53] EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Per this[54] they are now asking former Wikipedians to come here and vote. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I see you're shocked, SHOCKED that there's solicited votes going on in AfD's. Wonder how everyone here found out about this? Not worth longwinded arguing the point here. - Nhprman
      • This is a rather disappointing bit of off-wiki canvassing. Users actively involved with a project really can't be expected to evaluate an AfD concerning that project impartially; that's only realistic. Canvassing isn't likely to change the outcome of the debate, as our admins are competent enough, but it might result in a mini train wreck. Obviously users who don't contribute here aren't bound to en-wp policies like WP:CANVAS, but this seems plainly unconstructive. — xDanielx T/C\R 22:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Point one: I hope no one ever edits about things they know about. That would be rather "impartial" wouldn't it? (sarcasm) For the record, I've never edited this article. Secondly about canvasing, you're kidding, right? How did YOU discover this page - was Wikinfo on your watchlist already? Doubtful. In every single AfD I've ever participated in, I've seen a HUGE amount of canvassing, largely from Admins, and in fact, this page is listed on at least TWO lists of active AfDs, directing people, in effect, to go and delete this article. Thirdly, you should WP:AGF and not assume that those who are coming to this page aren't also regular, longtime WP editors as well, as I am. Not that others don't heve every right ot be here and speak out, too. Believe me, some of these Wikinfo editors know very well what goes on here and what the policies are. (And that's why they're at Wikinfo now.) Finally, WP:CANVAS urges "common sense" when applying this guideline, not the standard rigidity that these essays are often interpreted to require. - Nhprman 00:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Yes, I arrived here via a link on another AfD; no that's not inappropriate canvassing. WP:CANVAS makes the distinction clear -- AfDs generally don't have prejudicial audiences, while Wikinfo does (in the context of an AfD for Wikinfo, that is). This is why transcluding an AfD on the daily list of AfDs isn't considered inappropriate canvassing. It is also inappropriate, according to the same guidelines (which I think are very sensible), to engage in off-wiki canvassing without disclosing it on-wiki.
          • I'm all for "leaving it to the experts" where appropriate, but I'm not really convinced that general en-wp editors are unqualified to judge this without assistance. It's the same software (well, a fork with minimal differences), most of the relevant info (sources, wiki stats, etc.) is trivially easy to obtain, and most of us here have considerable familiarity with the project whether we choose to participate there or not.
          • If the Encyclopedia Dramatica folks engaged in the same sort of off-wiki, undisclosed canvassing for the ED AfD, would you consider it appropriate? Presumably not. Wikinfo may have more noble aspirations, but it's only reasonable to expect partiality from Wikinfo editors participating in this AfD. Perhaps the canvassing was done in good faith, it's just disappointing to see very reasonable (and intuitive) guidelines being neglected like this. — xDanielx T/C\R 05:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per lack of reliable independent sources about the subject, rather than mere passing mentions. Does not meet notability standards. I am disappointed by the canvassing that that has been shown to have taken place regarding this discussion, which I hope the closing admin will take into account. WjBscribe 23:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep Has enough sources to establish notability. This is an Otherstuffexists nom, as this all came out of the ED nom. Seriously, do we only want to delete this because it criticises Wikipedia? Don't we have more dignity than that? I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I note with some amusement that the 2nd nomination for deletion of Wikinfo's article here "seems to have been initiated by a vandal's sockpuppet" according to the person who nonetheless took up the baton on that deletion attempt, and the 4th nomination for deletion started with the bold statement "Note I have a bit of an anti-Wikinfo bias, because I have been vicously trolled and harassed by Fred Bauder, the admin of the site." Why this was allowed to get to a 6th deletion attempt is beyond me, given the outright bias presented in previous attempts, which often amounted to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Nhprman 01:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    Because it needs an objective analysis from editors to decide whether or not this can stay without meeting notability guidelines without the influence of ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT. Celarnor Talk to me 02:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep abusive nomination. Previous history: 2 keeps, a non-consensus, the another 2 keeps. There should be a clear policy against eve doing this. the present situation is asymmetrical--after a single delete it cant be recreated without deletion review, but after any number of keeps anyone can just go and try again until by chance the atmosphere is right. Lets say there's a 10% error rate each way at AfD in making the correct decision. Obviously, if you keep at the articler enough, theodds will be overwhelming that you'll succeed once--and once is enough. Like shooting at a target till you eventually chance to hit. You may miss 90% of the time, but eventually you'll get there no matter how inaccurate. Not that consensus has changed, or your skill has improved. DGG (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I am unconvinced that the mere number of AfDs or DRVs is sufficient to keep or delete any article or protect that article from further such discussions. Multiple such discussions in an unreasonable period of time is certainly a problem. The most recent AfD for this article was many months ago so this AfD does not seem unreasonable to me. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I *AM* convinced. DGG lays out perfectly the Deletionist tactic of "trial until guilty." This is an obvious tactic to reduce content on Wikipedia regardless of how many times the attempt has failed to generate consensus. If the article has been degraded in any way, the Deletionists here should please note why and how it has changed for the worst since the last 5 deletion attempts. If ANY improvements have been made, then the case for deletion is EVEN WEAKER than before, and it's even MORE insulated from deletion than in the past. IMO, the actually argument grows even weaker with each passing attempt. Unless of course the argument is "We didn't attract enough deletionists in the past," Then the AfD process is kind of exposed for what it is - a content deletion mechanism, at all costs. - Nhprman 02:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Strong Keep Wikinfo shows up with 91,000 google hits. Encyclopedia Dramatica shows up with 146,000 google hits. How many Google hits exactly defines "notable"? Keep it. Besides which, its philosophy lays right alongside Wikpedia with that single, particular difference, "sympathetic point of view", making an obvious comparison for those interested in tracing Wiki developments. Jim Bough (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Luckily we don't determine notability by counting google hits isnt it. ViridaeTalk 05:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • You probably want to review notability guidelines. Notability is determined by multiple pieces of independent coverage in reliable sources, which this doesn't have. Celarnor Talk to me 08:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per nom. Shii says it all really, and yes, it is less notable than Encyclopedia Dramatica. Also (and although this does not correlate with notability) it has an extremely low Alexa ranking.--AnonymousUser12345 (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • And I don't find the keep arguments very convincing here. It doesn't matter how many times something has been through AfD, look at the GNAA or Brian Peppers.--AnonymousUser12345 (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. Just enough coverage to indicate notability. Those 404s need to be fixed though! Bill (talk|contribs) 12:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Move into the Wikipedia namespace. Not much in the way of independent coverage; the blind assumption of notability put forward by others here reflects a Wikipedia-centric bias. Mackensen (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete Fails WP:WEB per various comments above (rather blatantly in fact). All sources are only a passing mention. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete It's very simple. WP:WEB requires multiple sources that are not trivial in amount of coverage. There are three independent sources of potentially non-trivial information cited at this article. One of them is behind a $10 subscription wall. The other two meet the WP:WEB description of trivial amount: a brief summary of the nature of the content. Every other argument amounts smoke blowing, contrary to AfD deletion policy as described at WP:DGFA#Rough Consensus, and that guideline instructs closing admins to discount !votes contrary to Wikipedia standards, logic or the facts. Do we follow the notability guidelines or not? Do we have a single standard for both the articles/subjects we like and the one's we don't? Anyone voting differently here than at the Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD should really think about explaining the difference, because there's a rotton stench of hypocrisy in the air (there can be reasons for voting differently -- for instance, there are more sources cited there than here -- but if you don't explain them, it looks like hypocrisy). The information can be moved into Wikipedia space, as Ned Scott suggested above (timestamp 04:44, 16 May), which is where non-notable subjects of interest to Wikipedians belong. Noroton (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I would support a move to the Wikipedia namespace. I don't have a problem with the Wikipedia namespace being used for that purpose and the article could live a quiet and undisturbed life there. Seems like a sensible compromise to me. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - Abusive nomination and there is enough substantial secondary coverage by reliable independent sources to warrant inclusion. --Oakshade (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Inclusion of this AfD on a "Wikiproject:Deletions" page is Canvasing by another name, although the effect of posting it on that page - and others - is "come delete stuff" rather than the "come save stuff" that is more likely through individual invitations or postings on articles and wikis with similiar interests. There is simply no difference. If one is illegitimate, than so is the other (although the deletionists probably have created a few clever essays to justify these 'projects,' which I find contrary to a positive article-creating encyclopedic experience.)- Nhprman 02:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • If you can point to two non-trivial, secondary reliable sources, that would mean this passed notability guidelines and I'll withdraw this right now. Celarnor Talk to me 02:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Here is what they are trying to pass off as non-trivial coverage from the The Journal of American History article: As Wikinfo (a fork, or spin-off, from Wikipedia) explains: "A wiki with so many hundreds of thousands of pages is bound to get some things wrong. The problem is, that because Wikipedia has become the 'AOL' [America Online] of the library and reference world, such false information and incorrect definitions of terms become multiple incompetences, propagated to millions of potential readers world-wide." It's not about Wikinfo - it's about Wikipedia! Oh, and I want my money back! EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I wish to announce that Economics Guy, in recognition of his spending cash in addition to his time for the advancement of knowledge for us all, has been duly awarded a "Lorenzo" a/k/a the Ka-Ching, Ka-Ching Citation of the Monied and Munificent Order of Wikipedian Patrons of Civilization, as so sported on his user page. Noroton (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, the Telepolis article has a paragraph about Wikinfo, as does the extended version of the Forschung & Lehre article (I don't have access to the published version, so I don't know what that has). I think those do (barely) qualify as non-trivial, and the sources appear to be reliable (assuming that the published version of the second article includes the Wikinfo stuff). Klausness (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete - regardless of the good-faith or otherwise of the nomination, this website simply doesn't seem to satisfy WP:RS. I count only one source that provides significant coverage. (Oh, and if it matters - I !voted exactly the same way on ED, I don't think either of them pass WP:WEB.)Terraxos (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep: Very useful as a pressure valve in heated debates when people want unsourced opinions here - as in Write a Wikinfo article if you want your opinion published or That is what Wikinfo is for - and look how popular that is. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • What does that have to do with including a Wikipedia article on it? There are lots of places you could theoretically go if you were annoyed with Wikipedia... that doesn't mean we have to have an article on every one of them. --Rividian (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It save time when sorting out real WP issues. Given that time is a limiting constraint for most people here, and that WP:NPOV and WP:V are the biggest problems most new users have here, things which help conclude arguments more quickly in these areas are generally good. It is often easier to deflect energy than to neutralise it. Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Then why keep it as an article? It could "deflect energy" just as effectively in the Wikipedia namespace. --Rividian (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
            • I wouldn't have a problem with that either. I only oppose Wikipedia trying to control access to knowledge in a self-serving way. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. Much like Citizendium and Conservapedia, it is a legitimate online encyclopedia with interest and use not necessarily related to Wikipedia's internal politics. Very much unlike ED I might add, which is just an attack site entirely dependent on Wikipedia internal politics and therefore not notable outside of Wikipedia-land. KleenupKrew (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Notability makes no such distinction. I don't buy it either. ED, which actually discusses chans and non-Wikipedia material has been cited for such, whereas both Conservapedia and Wikinfo are "we're not Wikipedia, which really sucks!"--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I see no consensus for deletion in this discussion. --Dezidor (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • And I see no arguments that address the concerns raised so it looks like this may not be over regardless of the outcome. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete; fails WP:WEB, especially as actually applied in recent AfDs. The cites don't give independent, non-trivial coverage.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Never heard of that site, but the nomination itself seems a little disruptive to me (as a "revenge" for AfD of ED article). However, I see less sources than ED has, so it's very weak delete --Have a nice day. Running 21:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • delete - seems not notable enough based on notability criteria used for afd's of other websites. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The real issue here seems to be with the terms "trivial" and "non-trivial". Perhaps we need to review and define what these terms mean precisely according to Wikipedia policy, and then this discussion can get somewhere.--AaronCarson (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It's been defined here as "a brief summary of the nature of the content". A sentence or two, basically, that just rehashes what Wikinfo is (or says it is, more often). That's trivial content, since we couldn't form a useful article with that. People have mentioned Conservapedia... I recall hearing a 5-10 minute piece on NPR about Conservapedia, which included extensive discussion about the validity of its viewpoint on the history of the US Democratic Party, contrasted with Wikipedia's. To me that is an example of non-trivial coverage. I just haven't seen that kind of coverage for Wikinfo. --Rividian (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
        • To me 3 sentences constitute trivial coverage. If 3 sentences or even a minor paragraph in 2 reliable sources was enough even I would be notable as would a lot of other people whose name has appeared in the local newspapers at some point in their life. It takes more than that, it needs to actually cover the subject in some detail to be non-trivial. I'm just not seeing that anywhere in this case. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete; fails WP:WEB as discussed above, ad nauseum. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete despite several previous AfDs and plenty of time we still do not have multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. As many people here are interested in writing articles about wikis (for obvious reasons) what coverage that has been presented is probably the result of an extremely through search. 2-3 sentences in the middle of a text about Wikipedia does not equal substantial coverage, through it may be enough to justify a mention in Criticism of Wikipedia or History of Wikipedia. This is nothing like Conservapedia, which has loads of press coverage. Hut 8.5 10:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

    Comment Can someone who is asking for the deletion of this article please explain how it's gotten WORSE since the last five attempts to delete it? If nothing's changed, were a majority of the participants of the past AfD's simply ignorant, stupid or duped? Or, if we are to assume good faith (as we should) were the previous participants just convinced that this article had merit as a description of a fork of Wikipedia with significantly different and unique policies that deserves mention in a supposedly all-encompassing encyclopedia? Or does WP no longer aspire to be such a place?) - Nhprman 14:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

    • You are making the (incorrect) assumption that the community is not allowed to change its mind about an article. In addition, several of the debates took place some time ago (and the notability criteria have probably changed since then) and not all the discussions were even closed as a consensus to keep. For the record my opinion has not changed since I commented in the discussion which took place this time last year. --Hut 8.5 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It hasn't gotten worse. The problem is that it hasn't gotten better, consensus can change, and there still isn't anything in reliable sources that indicate the notability of the subject. Celarnor Talk to me 17:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. Still fails WP:WEB for lack of sufficient substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, as noted umpteen times above.  Sandstein  19:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] artibrary section break

    • Comment I am particularly distressed at statements like "Fails WP:WEB", that are so prevalent at AfD's these days. These statements fundamentally misconstrue the notability guidelines. WP:N states, "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable.". This means that having nontrivial secondary source coverage guarantees notability, but the converse is not true - a lack of sources alone cannot override other arguments for notability. The same is true for WP:WEB. This article is notable for all the reasons above, and all the reasons in the previous 6 AfD's, which have not been sufficiently rebutted by those here voting "delete, fails WP:WEB". Z00r (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
      • WP:V, which is core policy, is what demands nontrivial secondary source coverage. A lack of sources can and should override every argument of notability. Furthermore, this is not "currently does not cite"; this is not an article where limits of time or space mean that many citations are currently hard to find; Wikipedia editors have read literally every word ever published in reliable sources on the subject. If it ain't here, it probably doesn't exist.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
        • WP:V requires nothing of the sort. It requires that Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.". Material unlikely to be challenged does not need to be cited (although it is still a good idea where possible). Additionally, WP:V does not care if the coverage is "trivial" or not, so long as it backs up the facts it is cited for. Z00r (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I think this counters ZOOr's point: Wikipedia: Notability#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines: Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criteria are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. That's what this exception is all about. By this point, sources would have been added to meet the notability guidelines if sources could be found. Conclusion: It can't readily be sourced. Noroton (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't even require them to be added to the article to withdraw my nomination. Simply listing them here would be good enough for me. But it's pretty clear that no RS sources with non-trivial coverage exist. Celarnor Talk to me 01:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The exception is about more than just the potential existence of sources, it is about subjects that may be notable even if there are no sources about them. For example, we recognize that colleges, cities, airports, and the like are notable even if they are not covered in secondary sources. Similarly, via the arguments presented in this and the previous AfD's, I hold that Wikinfo is notable even though it lacks coverage. Z00r (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Inherent notability doesn't exist for web sites. See WEB. Celarnor Talk to me 02:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, inherent notability isn't policy or even a guideline. It is, as you put it in regards to "Arguments to avoid during deletion discussions", an "essay pretending to policy". Celarnor Talk to me 02:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If a topic meets notability standards per WP:N, then WP:WEB cannot be used to "remove" it's notability. WP:WEB simply provides another way for web-based topics to be notable, and clarifies some other web-specific points (advertising, etc).
    As for the "inherent notability" wording, I was not referring to that essay or the arguments contained therein (I didn't even know that the essay existed until now). My point was that 1) WP:N intentionally states that things may be notable even if there are no sources, and 2) this notability "fuzziness" is routinely used for more than just technical reasons (technical reasons such as the sources exist but can't be found).
    Now, if you want to turn the subjective and subtle issue of notability into a mechanical process of reference counting then that is fine, but the proper way to do that is by changing the policy. Z00r (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    I believe you're misinterpreting WP:N. It says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. [...] "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail," and "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability." The section you quote about not requiring sources says "it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be." I think it's clear we can't readily establish notability, or it would have been done. So it fails WP:N.
    There's no such thing as a real college, city or airport that doesn't have sources. There are bureaucracies surrounding the creation of sources for these things. We delete articles on neighborhoods all the time, because they don't have the same types of sources as cities.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    There are tens of thousands of rural cities that have never been given nontrivial coverage in a third party reliable source. As for the rest of your points - we are talking in circles. 1) The source guidelines at WP:N establish sufficient but not necessary conditions for notability, 2) there are other ways to establish notability besides coverage in 3rd party sources, 3) the non-source based arguments in the previous 6 AfD's convince me of the notability of this topic. Z00r (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Notability requires objective evidence. There's no objective evidence here. Just a few paltry mentions in articles about other subjects. Whatever way you look at, this fails WEB, and even fails the incredibly broad and including general notability guidelines, which only require a few sources for notability and nothing else. This subject doesn't even have that, and frankly, I'm surprised that it has survived as long as it has in the deletion-heavy atmosphere of Wikipedia. And you're wrong about cities. Going through the cities category, I wasn't able to find anything that didn't assert notability. I found cities with references to historical works, books on the city, tourism guides, and specials on the cities that had happened on the local news. All reliable sources, all verifiable, all objective, unlike what we have here. Here we don't have anything. Celarnor Talk to me 04:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Evidence was provided near the top of the page, and you disputed whether the evidence is sufficient, which is your perogative. I do not wish to debate it further, both of our views are known. Z00r (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    Really? Where? I've lived in Woods County, Oklahoma, so if these undocumented cities exist, I should have seen them. Let's take Ingersoll, Oklahoma, because it has a population of 18, IIRC. It's an unincorporated community, which isn't quite a city, but we'll run with it anyway. A search on Google Books turns up "A History of Ingersoll, Oklahoma," The Chronicles of Oklahoma. Vol. XXX, No. 1 (Spring, 1952), p. 129 and Ghost Towns of Oklahoma both having serious coverage on the topic, and plenty of casual mentions. Step two would be to look at the Alva Review-Courier, which has a hundred years of records on the city.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Hundreds of thousands of autogenerated trivial searchspam pages for all registered city names ("weather for city X", "chiropracters within 20 miles of X", etc) are making it difficult for me to conclusively disprove your statement, but suffice it to say that most small towns of less than 100 people have much less coverage than Ingersoll, Oklahoma (Ingersoll being surprisingly historic due to its tile elevator). It would be highly unlikely that, out of all of the towns in the world, there aren't a significant number that have little to no substantive third party coverage of them (not that the actual existence of such a town matters - a thought experiment would suffice). But now we are getting way off topic... Z00r (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    Ingersoll is not historic due to its tile elevator; just about every place has something. It's probably more historic for nearly being the capital of Cherokee County and descending from a population of around 1000 to 18. Moreover, part of what I missed with taking an unincorporated city is stuff like Amorita, Oklahoma, where we can say a lot just off the census material that every city in the first world has. Not only that, you miss part of the point; that the Alva Review-Courier and like publications are not web-accessible, but have a huge amount of information on these cities. A thought experiment doesn't suffice; we're claiming we keep cities because they always have sources. If you can't find one without those sources, then it's a pretty solid claim.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - It is notable, easily found a number of presented or published, third party papers that cite Wikinfo and its interesting concept to content and dispute resolution. e.g. [55], [56]Journal of American History, Viable Wikis: Struggle for Life in the Wikisphere, perhaps in this paper too. Also I think AfD'd 6 times is a bit much (my first vote on it though). Given the problems we have here at WP, I am almost surprised that WP doesn't advertise Wikinfo.--TheNautilus (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • None of those say Wikinfo's concept is interesting... they just verify Wikinfo exists. There are sites that verify my blog exists... that doesn't mean we have an article on it. --Rividian (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Several papers, including academics, especially note its basis and concept in contrast to WP. That is sufficient.--TheNautilus (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    In your opinion... but in our actual notability guidelines, there is a requirement for non-trivial coverage, not just a mention of existance. --Rividian (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Apparently, we're allowed to change rules to advance the goal of Deletion. TheNautilus has provided secondary sources, and that is now deemed - in your opinion - not good enough? I believe the Notoriety - I mean notability - guideline is being rather strictly and incorrectly interpreted, as it is often by those who wish to simply delete - Nhprman 15:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    I think our reading of WP:N is entirely defensible. I'm fairly inclusionist, but there's nothing in the sources to work from, besides bare mentions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    It's all just too trivial. We can't write an article based off of mentions that it exists and it's a Wikipedia fork. There has to be objective, substantive coverage. Celarnor Talk to me 17:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete. Lack of reliable third party sources that have significant information on the subject, an issue which is at the root of our notability guidelines. -- SCZenz (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • strong delete no notability, only one or two google news hits, and they're in German.[57] Sticky Parkin 13:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - non-trivial mentions in several published academic papers makes this notable. Reggie Perrin (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      • And what academic papers would these be? EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Look above at TheNautilus (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2008. They were just cited, and are valid mentions. - Nhprman 15:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
          • One of the refs, Journal of American History[58] only mention of wikinfo is "As Wikinfo (a fork, or spin-off, from Wikipedia) explains: "A wiki with so many hundreds of thousands of pages is bound to get some things wrong. The problem is, that because Wikipedia has become the 'AOL' [America Online] of the library and reference world, such false information and incorrect definitions of terms become multiple incompetences, propagated to millions of potential readers world-wide."" -that's not coverage of wikinfo, that's coverage of wikipedia. We could merge the article on wikinfo into one on wiki, or mention that this is its view at criticism of wikipedia. The same with the Ambiguity article [59] - wikinfo is only there as part of a discussion of the problems with wikipedia and as a contrast to it, and is only give a few lines, not even a paragraph, in a long article on wikipedia.[60] "and even in some encyclopedia projects such as for instance Wikinfo which precisely encourages diverse points of views for a same article." The other article TheNautilus mentioned we can't view. So this is the depth and number of sources for the subject.Sticky Parkin 15:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
            • The last article linked to by TheNautilus does not contain a single mention of Wikinfo. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
            • There are a number of additional academic references returned in a Google Scholar search. Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Goolge Books] as well. Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
                • "Look at this raw websearch" is almost always unhelpful. Looking at your scholar search turns up stuff we've seen and stuff that only mentions the URL. The book search turns up one of the later, and one which might be useful if someone actually looked at a paper copy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
                • I looked through all of that prior to nominating this, per the guidelines set forth in DEL and BEFORE. I was hoping that I could improve it to the point where we could keep it, but sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case. Everything is just too trivial. Celarnor Talk to me 17:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Merge some content into Internet encyclopedia project and redirect, also some content could be merged into Criticism of Wikipedia. Although I am unable to find substantial coverage about Wikinfo in reliable sources it is mentioned in coverage of wikipedia, wikis, and encyclopedia projects. Not enough to write an article about but enough to at least be mentioned in the relevant articles. --Snigbrook (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Speedy keep. This has gone through AfD five times previously, and the result has been keep four times out of five (with the fifth time being no consensus -- and that wasn't even the last nomination). Note also that this appears to be part of a batch of nominations from the nominator, some of which seem pointy. Xihr (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      Please note that this user doesn't seem to be assuming good faith. This is my first nomination ever. Those other two nominations are procedural nominations, not my own, and you should note that I !voted keep on both of them. Still, beyond NOTAGAIN, an argument to be avoided during XfDs, you haven't provided a keep rationale, let alone one that fits any speedy keep criteria, nor have you given us a reason why we should ignore notability guidelines and WEB in this case. Celarnor Talk to me 18:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      Assume the assumption of good faith. One of your other AfDs was clearly absurd, and smelled of WP:POINT problems (and I wasn't the only one to sniff them). As for the reasoning, I gave it quite clearly. It's been decided four other times that it's notable. Repeatedly calling AfDs on articles that repeatedly pass AfDs is a waste of time and energy, and seems to fly in the face of consensus. The consensus is already that the article is worth of keeping. Xihr (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      Consensus can change. To accuse Celarnor of WP:POINT violations when he is just completing a nomination started by someone who didnt know who to complete the nom is pretty bad faith of you. ViridaeTalk 23:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
      You're right; I misunderstood the chain of events here leading up to the nomination, as well as the relationship between the other nominations he filed shortly thereafter (and still, the other AfD was positively bizarre). I apologize, Celarnor. As for your other remark, it's true that consensus can change, but for that argument to make sense, one would need to demonstrate what's different. The arguments being made by the deleters here are that the article isn't notable, not that it is no longer notable, or that the standards for notability have changed. Without demonstrating something has changed, repeated AfDs are just a license to repeat the process until you get your way. Xihr (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
      It doesn't assert notability now. It never has. It never can with the current coverage, because there's just not enough sources available for it. If you can show me two pieces of non-trivial independent coverage about the subject, I'll withdraw the nomination right now. That would mean that the subject asserted notability per WEB and N. The problem is, there isn't any non-trivial independent of the subject. Celarnor Talk to me 00:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Weak delete. I'm really just not satisfied with the sourcing, and I very rarely say that. It just doesn't stand up to our general notability standards, though it may have (marginally) done so several months back when these standards were a bit more lenient. I think the procedural concerns raised by DGG and others are valid, but not that compelling in this case as the time gap (which I think is more important than the raw number of nominations) was substantial.
    • Delete. This is another example of an article that has existed for a long time despite failing to meet normal notability requirements merely because it is associated with a prominent Wikipedian. It's remarkable how things more notable than Wikinfo are often deleted despite having received substantial media attention, but people turn up to defend something like this. Everyking (talk) 07:21, 22 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. John254 01:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Taiwan Strait Tunnel Project

    Taiwan Strait Tunnel Project (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

    WP:NOTLINK, article holds no actual information. It's been tagged as a stub for an extended period of time and has not been expanded until this AfD was proposed. Article also fails to state notability. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Keep There are substatial pages in chinese.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 02:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment. This is an English language site, however. Sources need to be in English. Of the 3 links given, one is dead, one is an OK media source, and one is HTML markup code and unreadable. I'm undecided as to whether to support deletion or keeping, but better sources and some expansion is advisable for this to survive the AFD challenge. 23skidoo (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Commentno requirement at all that the sources be in english. See WP:RS. It would help though ifhere were further informationDGG (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. Real proposed tunnel, and notable by claiming to link Taiwan to Mainland China. Article already has sources, of which at least one is in English. JIP | Talk 04:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Article has sources, but no substance. Refer to WP:NOTLINK. No material. No information. Sources are from 2005; there are no updates and work on this tunnel have yet to even begin. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep. There is a whole category for proposed tunnel projects, including highly speculative ones such as Japan-Korea and Britain-Ireland. The linked articles seem sufficient to establish notability. It would be great if someone expanded this with content from the engineering article, but stub != delete. Bm gub (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - I don't think that the fact that the tunnel is being planned, designed and is being implimented is in dispute. I don't think that the notability of it should be in dispute. I can see that it is a short article right now but has GREAT potential for expansion. This should not have gone to AfD... It just needs to be wiki'd and expanded. --Pmedema (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I brought this article to AfD BECAUSE it was left in such a state for over a year. It wasn't wiki'd or expanded for a year until I put on the AfD tag. The article, in the state it was in when I nominated it for AfD failed to establish notability or even provide any encyclopedic information and fell under WP:NOTLINK. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment AfD should not be used for cleanup. I have taken some time and added some content to the article bassed on the references added by User:Ksyrie. There are other tags to use regarding requests for cleanup like a {{Wikify}} tag.
    • Keep As per previous comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep I'm at a loss to explain this nomination; AfD is not cleanup. Sources do not have to be in English, the only criteria they must meet is that they are reliable - and the sources are available. It's just an ordinary run-of-the-mill stub. And there are many, many sources in English, see [61]. Regards, EJF (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Very strong keep this is a frankly bizarre nom. Since when has "tagged as a stub for a long time" been a deletion criteria? This warrants an article just as much as Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge - it's just that HK has more English-speakers able to translate from the Chinese. — iridescent 18:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:01, 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 per consensus. Neologism, WP:NPOV and original research issues. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] British Raj Apologist

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

    Fails WP:N. The article is created by a well-known POV pusher who has been accused of various times by several persons for pushing disruptive anti-British POV and compared the British with the Nazis. This article is a soapboxing article. The term has no significant coverage in reliable sources. No hint in google books [62] There are 65 ghits [63] if search for the term "Imperial Apologis", but the sources do not describe the term in detail, and all sources are not in the Indian/British India context. Same is for "British Apologist", [64] 91 ghits, but no significant coverage in reliable sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    Thank you for your personal attack. My interest is in removing pro-british bias from Indian history related articles that seem to be heavily influenced by "British POV pushers". More specifically I am interested in removal of attempts to glorify British Raj or misrepresentation of facts by "whitewashing" atrocities of British Raj in wikipedia related articles. Anyone should feel free to look at my edit history and tell me if I have touched a single British related article. Thank you. Desione (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I have not made any "personal attack" against you. Telling the fact that someone has been accused of POV-pushing by others is not "personal attack". Also accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. As I have pointed out, this term lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and has not been described in any well-known peer-reviewed academic journal. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    Please show links or diffs as to where someone has accused me of pov pushing (hopefully from people who haven't been accused of pov pushing themselves)? And irrespective of whether I or you or anyone else is pushing/arguing their point of view on wikipedia using reliable and neutral sources, I have shown that the term is in frequent usage in books and news media. That is sufficient cause to create and keep the article irrespective of your personal interpretation. Desione (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    very specifically in peer-reviewed journals see the following hits on google scholar: [65][66]. Desione (talk)
    WP:GOOGLE is not the way to establish notability. You need to provide scholarly sources which describe this term in detail. All the google books hits mention the term, are only passing sound, not significant coverage. Also as I have mentioned before, not all the ghits are in the Indian/British Raj context. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    You are the one who used search engine results to incorrectly conclude that the term is not significant; while as, following your own procedure, I have shown that it is. Desione (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    Here is what WP:GOOGLE says: A test using a search engine is intended to help with the following research questions: Notability - Confirm whether it is covered by independent sources or just within its own circles."
    The diversity and variety of sources returned by the search engine do show that the event is notable. Desione (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    And I am still waiting for you to show me where I was accused of being a POV pusher otherwise I would certainly think that your equating me with POV pusher in the same sentence is a personal attack. Thank you. Desione (talk)
    The article is original research. The sources given do not support the statements. "British Apologist or Imperial Apologist, refers to individuals or groups who justify, promote, or glorify British Raj or British Empire, frequently denying negative events, crimes, and persecution inflicted by the British Empire:. This statement is not supported by any scholarly source and constitutes original research. And again, see WP:N. You need to provide sources, not only google hits, so that it can be proved that the term has significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and well-known academic journals. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    I agree about the WP:OR part and have made fixes (I don't claim to have infallibly unbiased views as many other editors in wikipedia would claim and this is certainly not the first time I am saying this here on wikipedia). However, the term is definitely notable and I will bring up specific citations regarding this tomorrow since I have to pull out laundry from the washing machine :-) and take care of other stuff. With respect to WP:OR see recent changes in Imperial Apologist. Thanks. Desione (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    "Imperial Apologist, or in many cases British Apologist, refers to people who speak or write in defense of the former British Raj or British Empire" - this is still original research. And you have not addressed to the actual issue that the term has no significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and notable academic journals. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    No it is not original research. It is the definition of word apologist (people who speak or write in defense of something). In this case the something is former British Empire. Desione (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete non-notable term.Icewedge (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep The page British Raj Apologist is a refinement of pre-existing article Apologetics and explains a commonly used terms British Aplogist/British Raj Apologist/Imperial Aplologist that are frequently used all in reference to justification and glorification of British Empire. With respect to google hits, see British Apologist: [67][68], Imperial Apologist: [69][70]. The term has been previously been used in British publications such as Gardian (see [71]). The term is very notable and in frequent use. Desione (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    Since "British Apologist" and "Imperial Apologist" seem to be the most common terms, I have renamed the article to "British Apologist / Imperial Apologist". In either case, the term is in very good use and quite notable. Desione (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • neutral The term 'Imperial Apologist' is fairly well understood. I'm not sure about 'British Apologist' though and definitely don't like British Raj Apologist. While the term Imperial Apologist is generally used to apply to contemporary (with the Raj) supporters of the imperial mission of Britain, it is less used in modern times (perhaps because, Niall Ferguson excepting, apologists are hard to find in the academic world). In the case of this article, it would seem to me that there is an attempt to make a point but I would prefer to give the creator a good faith chance to modify the article appropriately. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 02:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    I am more than open to discuss content and organization of British_Apologist_/_Imperial_Apologist Desione (talk)
    • Delete When considered in context of the on-going edit wars on various British Raj pages, this article seems like a thinly veiled personal attack against a number of editors. Ronnotel (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    I was actually searching for description of "British/Imperial (Raj) Apologist" and their views on contribution/misrule of British Empire/Raj when I realized and was quite surprised to find out that there is no article in wikipedia that describes British/Imperial Apologist. There is hardly anyone with even a decent understanding of British Empire/Raj history who hasn't come across this term in one form or other. Hence, I created a new article to describe the term. What is surprising is not that this article is being created. The surprising thing is that this term has remained undescribed in wikipedia despite extensive coverage of British Raj related issues. And certainly in this regard, I can see that there might be a conscious effort not to fully describe this term in wikipedia. I can discuss notability with you and I can discuss WP:GOOGLE search results with you, but if you are starting out assuming an abstract thing like bad faith on my behalf that is something that not just me, but no one else can discuss. Desione (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete, obviously. User:Desione is close to crossing various POINTy lines. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    Which pointy lines am I crossing and how? Creating an article on wikipedia is crossing pointy lines? Desione (talk) 08:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete, anti-British propaganda once more, definatly should be deleted.--Rockybiggs (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yes everything that you perceive as negative should be deleted from wikipedia Desione (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    Partial List of Coverage of the term "Imperial Apologist" for Notability

    [80] [81] [82] I will add more soon.

    You have 4 sources from the Guardian Newspaper, which is not/never a NPOV perspective, and other unreliable sources--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Delete non-notable term. --Kleinzach (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep - Even if it is a non-notable term, there is no guideline/rule which states that Wikipedia can't be used to set a precedent rather than merely following one. DemolitionMan (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - Actually there is. WP:NOT#OR makes it pretty clear that we do not put ourselves in the position of being the first observers of any particular trend. Once reliable sources have discussed it, then we are free to write an article that conveys what those sources state. I haven't read through enough of the background issue to discuss the underlying issue, so neutral for now. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete - poor article created by POV-pushers. Possibly there's a good way to write a vaguely similar article, but this is certainly not it. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • remove redirect - The article is now redirected to Imperial Apologist and well on it's way to a pretty good looking stub. The term Imperial Apologist is notable and has reliable sources. The only thing I don't agree with is the redirect from British Raj Apologist... --Pmedema (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    I removed the redirect. Desione (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    Some other international news sources including British newspapers (TheTimes and Telegraph): [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] Desione (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    Books: [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] Desione (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    If you have anything worth to mention in the article from the sources, then do that. None of the source describe the term in detail. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    That would probably take time (at least on my side) since one would need to come up with and collate the views that "imperial apologists" have held in past or currently hold regarding the empire. Desione (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete, for various reasons. The article contains virtually no info at all, and the definition of the term is not really explained. The definition that an 'imperial apologist' is an apologist for the Empire is not basis for having an encyclopediatic article. We don't need articles for each possible political position. Also, to say that Kipling was an 'apologist' is a bit misleading, Kipling was an active advocate of the imperialist policies. --Soman (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    There is really no difference in describing Kipling as Imperial Apologist or Kipling as active advocate of the imperialist policies. Both mean the same. Kipling is specifically pointed out as an "Imperial Apologist" by multiple reliable sources. And as far as I know wikipedia does have articles describing political positions. Also, I am not looking to make this a "big" article, just a short article describing significant aspects in a well cited manner. Desione (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete per Otolemur crassicaudatus, Relata refero, Ronnotel, Moreschi, and Soman. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete Given that the term is (just as the thing it attacks) POV it would be very difficult to prove a given stance is an Imperial Appolgist stance (why by the way does there need to be raj, or British, they were not the only empire in the world?). This seems to be the be pure POV (singling out one nation) pushing, and an attempt to estalbish a precident (actualy addmited to). [[Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)]]
    You're right about the broader usage. A quick search of jstor produces articles that refer to people as apologists for imperialism in China, Japan, the Roman Empire, etc. etc. I think it is going to be hard to justify an article on this topic, it seems a tad vague and no formal definition appears to exist. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 17:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Regents, I am sure you know that non-existence of a set of articles is hardly a reason not to create a new article on wikipedia. In fact, I believe we have had this discussion on the almost unique article Religious violence in India as if there is no religious violence outside of India. An article describing the views held by a group is definitely ok for wikipedia as illustrated by Neoconservatism and many many other similar articles. I am simply creating one in a long series of such articles. One could argue that Neoconservatism is also difficult to define. I think the main problem here is that the article is being perceived negatively hence the attempts to delete it (rather than POV). The article as it stands is written in an extremely neutral manner in the form of views that are held by Imperial Apologist and what their critiques think and you are more than welcome to improve it if needed. Desione (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    I have already agreed before that the term "British Raj Apologist" is unjustified, but the term Imperial Apologist and the somewhat inaccurate term British Apologist which often means the same thing as Imperial Apologist is well justified. Desione (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Based on searches, as far as I can see the term "Imperial Apologist" is not notable with reference to Roman Empire, Japan, China, etc. Desione (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    With respect to POV pushing, it doesn't come as a surprise to me that some of the same editors here who were pushing for the article Religious violence in India are pushing against the article Imperial Apologist Desione (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Desione, I think it would help if you could demonstrate at least one of two things. If you can find a formal definition, you're home and dry on this one. I did do a cursory search but couldn't find anything. If no formal definition can be found then, perhaps, you could look for similar wikipedia articles as evidence that informal terms have a place in wikipedia. The discussion here is focusing on POV issues, but that should not be the focus. Even if the intent be POV, and even if the text appear to be POV, the question of article-worthiness of 'imperial apologist' should be addressed independently of those issues. Bias in an article can always be taken care of after the question of deletion is decided, as also can scope (should Rome, Japan, etc. be included, for example). I think the term is pretty well understood so, prima facie, it appears article worthy, IMHO. You need to push it beyond the prima facie stage (especially considering the opposition on this page!). --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 20:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    If the article is about imperial or colonial apoologism in general then I have no objectiion to the idea of the article. My objectin is the bias that the article currently shows. [[Slatersteven (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)]]
    Comment
    There is quite a few google book hits on "apologist for Colonialism", and for colonial apologist indicating that the term is in wider use, as are other terms as pointed out above. I believe the article is actually attempting to describe a school of thought that biasedly interprets the history of colonialism by ignoring or suppressing the more negative aspects of it's history. It is by no means limited to British, and as such using "British apologist" is wrong and pointedly PoV. I do think however that it is a neccessary part of the article on colonialism, same as, using an extreme example, Holocaust denial is very real (Please dont jump up!notice I say extreme example).Having said that, WP:OR and WP:NPOV needs to be strictly adhered to, not only by the pro, but also by the anti parties. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 20:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

    PS: I believe Yasmin Alibhai-Brown uses the term "Imperial revisionism", which maybe a more appropriate title and description. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 20:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

    I think I would be ok with the following: 1) creating an article "Imperial revisionism" 2) significantly describing the ideas and views of "colonial/imperial apologists" and their critics in the "Imperial revisionism" article (perhaps in a separate section), and 3) redirecting the terms "colonial apologist", "imperial apologist" to the the "Imperial revisionism" article. The term "British Apologist" is an inaccurate term (I agree with that); however, given the historical baggage, the term "British Apologist" is very well associated with "colonial/imperial apologist" and I really don't see whats the problem in adding a sentence regarding this in the article just as the term "Hindu nationalist" has been used 249 times in wikipedia (see [100]). But if this is what people here are most concerned about, I am willing to keep this term out of the article (which is against NPOV) provided that we drop this AfD and move on with the article. Thanks. Desione (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Just in case any one is concerned about redirections note that the term Hindu nationalist redirects to Hindu nationalism just like the term neo-conservative redirects to Neoconservatism and since this seems to be a new article, I am more than open to discussing what the scope should be. Desione (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    In all honesty, Desione, with imperial apologist you're already flirting a bit with WP:OR. With imperial revisionism, you're moving into the dating phase. :-). (A purely facetious remark with no intent to be rude or uncivil!)--Regents Park (Feed my swans) 23:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    I thought I was adopting a "compromising position" with "Imperial Revisionism" :-) As for WP:OR, the term "colonial/imperial apologist" is best understood (both in real world and in wikipedia article) when described in terms of well cited views held by these apologist and well cited critiques of these views. Hardly WP:OR. I am assuming that notability is no longer an issue? Desione (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    Comment
    An article already exists on Historical revisionism. I believe this article can be merged into that as a sub-section. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    I have just added a subsection to the Historical Negationism article. I dont know if this helps. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    I think this complements the Imperial Apologist article well. Desione (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    Strong Delete: Neologism and POV.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 03:24, 25 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 - patent nonsense not even approaching NFT status. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Tandem Art

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

    Contested PROD. An art concept that was made up by two kids in school one day. Remarkably unnotable. Roleplayer (talk) 00:13, 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.